Patterson v. Yazoo City, Mississippi et al

Filing 179

ORDER denying 175 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 3/19/2012 (PL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
HENRY LEWIS PATTERSON, “H.L.”

VERSUS

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-CV-00153-DCB-JMR

YAZOO CITY, MISSISSIPPI;
YAZOO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI; and
YAZOO RECREATION COMMISSION

DEFENDANTS

OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Yazoo County’s Motion for
Entry of Final Judgment Under Federal Rule 54(b) [docket entry no.
175]. Having carefully considered said Motion, applicable statutory
and case law, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises,
the Court denies Yazoo County’s Motion.
The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Yazoo County
because

it

found

that

Yazoo

County

could

not

be

considered

Patterson’s employer under the ADA and ADEA. As Yazoo County is
aware, however, the issue of which entity can and cannot be
considered

Patterson’s

employer

under

the

ADA

and

ADEA

is

a

critical issue in this case and is almost certain to be addressed
should the trial verdict be appealed. Accordingly, any hardship
Yazoo County will incur in having to participate further in the
case’s

litigation

Circuit’s

is

instruction

substantially
to

avoid

outweighed

piecemeal

by

the

Fifth

appeals.

See,

e.g.,

Eldredge v. Martin Marietta Corp., 207 F.3d 737, 740 (5th Cir.
2000). Accordingly, the Court concludes that in the present case

there is just reason for delaying entry of final judgment in Yazoo
County’s favor. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 54(b).
IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED that Yazoo County’s Motion for
Entry of Final Judgment [docket entry no. 175] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this the 19th day of March 2012.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2