Papin v. University of Mississippi Medical Center et al

Filing 207

ORDER denying 193 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b); denying 195 Motion for Interlocutory Appeal; denying as moot 197 Motion to Stay Case. Signed by District Judge Kristi H. Johnson on 12/6/2021. (ANT)

Case 3:17-cv-00763-KHJ-FKB Document 207 Filed 12/06/21 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

JOSEPH PAPIN

PLAINTIFF

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-763-KHJ-FKB

UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI
MEDICAL CENTER

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Before the Court are Plaintiff Joseph Papin’s Motion for Entry of Judgment
under Rule 54(b) [193], Motion for Interlocutory Appeal [195], and Motion to Stay
Case [197]. Papin filed these motions in response to this Court’s August 31st Order
[170] and September 22nd Order [192]. For the following reasons, the Court denies
the motions.
I.

Facts and Procedural History
After the Court’s August 31st Order, Papin filed a Motion for Entry of Final

Judgment under Rule 54(b) [179], Motion for Interlocutory Appeal [183], and a
Motion to Stay Case [183]. The Court denied all three motions, declining to exercise
its discretion to enter a Rule 54(b) order and finding that the requirements for
certification were not met. September 13th Order [190].
Since that ruling, the Court entered its September 22nd Order that
addressed several motions in limine, including limiting Papin’s future damages to
the term of his one-year contract with UMMC. [192] at 5–8. Additionally, Papin’s
trial was originally scheduled for October 25th, 2021, but was postponed to an

Case 3:17-cv-00763-KHJ-FKB Document 207 Filed 12/06/21 Page 2 of 4

uncertain date because of COVID-19. See Mem. in Support [196] at 4. Papin now reurges his motions for judgment under Rule 54(b) and certification for an
interlocutory appeal because of these intervening events. Id. at 1–2.
II.

Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) [193]
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) states, “the [C]ourt may direct entry of

a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the
[C]ourt expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” The purpose of
Rule 54(b) “is to avoid the injustice of a delay in entering judgment on a distinctly
separate claim or as to fewer than all of the parties until the final adjudication of
the entire case by making an immediate appeal available.” Tex. Adv. Optoelectronic

Sols., Inc., v. Renesas Elecs. Am. Inc., No. 4:08-cv-00451, 2019 WL 4805917, at *2
(E.D. Tex. Oct. 1, 2019) (citation omitted). “Entry of the [R]ule 54(b) order is
discretionary.” Jasmin v. Dumas, 726 F.2d 242, 244 (5th Cir. 1984). “A request for
entry of final judgment and certification under this rule is . . . not to be granted
routinely.” Id. “The procedure should be sparingly and deliberately used . . . .” Id.
Again, the Court sees no reason to enter final judgment now. Papin does not
raise any new arguments on how his desire for immediate appeal “outweigh[s] the
important concerns underlying ‘the historic federal policy against piecemeal
appeals.’” Briargrove Shopping Ctr. Joint Venture v. Pilgrim Enters., Inc., 170 F.3d
536, 540 (5th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Thus, Papin’s Motion for Entry of Final
Judgment under Rule 54(b) [193] is DENIED.

2

Case 3:17-cv-00763-KHJ-FKB Document 207 Filed 12/06/21 Page 3 of 4

III.

Motion for Interlocutory Appeal [195] and Motion to Stay Case [197]

“[A]s a general rule, parties must litigate all issues in the trial court before
appealing any one issue.” Henry v. Lake Charles Am. Press LLC, 566 F.3d 164, 171
(5th Cir. 2009). The Court may certify an otherwise unappealable issue for
immediate appeal if: (1) it involves a controlling question of law; (2) there is
substantial ground for difference of opinion; and (3) an immediate appeal may
materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
District courts have “unfettered discretion to deny certification, even when all three
[statutory criteria] are satisfied.” Nieman v. City of Dallas, No. 3:14-cv-3897, 2016
WL 470235, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2016).
Papin does not cite authority suggesting that the Court’s holdings in the prior
Orders satisfy these three requirements. Because the Court finds that not all three
factors are present, the Motion for Interlocutory Appeal [195] is DENIED and the
Motion to Stay Case [197] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IV.

Conclusion
The Court has considered all the arguments set forth by the parties. Those

arguments not addressed would not have changed the outcome of the Court’s
decision. For these reasons, the Court DENIES Papin’s Motion for Entry of Final
Judgment under Rule 54(b) [193] and Motion for Interlocutory Appeal [195], and
DENIES AT MOOT Papin’s Motion to Stay Case [197].

3

Case 3:17-cv-00763-KHJ-FKB Document 207 Filed 12/06/21 Page 4 of 4

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 6th day of December, 2021.
s/ Kristi H. Johnson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4