United States et al v. Jaynes Corporation et al

Filing 169

ORDER Granting 161 Motion for Judgment. The clerk of court shall enter judgment in favor of plaintiff Agate Steel, Inc. and against defendants Jaynes Corporation and Western Surety Company in the amount of $126,907.00 plus post-judgment interest at the statutory rate running from the date of the judgment until paid. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 7/20/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5

UNITED STATES for the use and benefit
of AGATE STEEL, INC. and AGATE
STEEL, INC.,

6
7
8
9

Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:13-CV-01907-APG-NJK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 161)

JAYNES CORPORATION and WESTERN
SURETY COMPANY,

10

Defendants.
___________________________________

11

AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS.

12
13

Plaintiff Agate Steel, Inc. moves for entry of judgment in its favor based on my prior

14

order granting summary judgment in favor of Agate and against defendants Jaynes Corporation

15

and Western Surety Company. Jaynes and Western oppose, arguing that issues of fact remain as

16

to whether third party defendants American Steel Corporation and Ohio Casualty Insurance

17

Company will have to indemnify Jaynes for the amount owed to Agate.

18

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that “[w]hen an action presents more than

19

one claim for relief . . . , the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but

20

fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason

21

for delay.” To determine whether to enter judgment as to fewer than all claims or parties, I must

22

determine whether I have rendered a judgment that finally disposed of an individual claim or

23

party entered in multi-party or multi-claims case and whether there is any just reason to delay

24

appeal of that decision. Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir. 2005). This

25

inquiry involves judicial efficiency considerations such as whether certification would result in

26

successive appeals on the same facts or legal issues; whether the adjudicated claims are

27
28

1

independent of the remaining claims; whether future developments in the case might moot the

2

appeal; and whether delay in the entry of the judgment would cause financial harm.

3

Id. at 878-82. I also evaluate the equities. Id. at 878. “Analyzing a Rule 54(b) judgment requires

4

a pragmatic approach with focus on severability and efficient judicial administration.” S.E.C. v.

5

Platforms Wireless Int’l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted).

6

Here, I entered two orders finally disposing of Agate’s claims against Jaynes and Western.

7

ECF Nos. 149, 159. Agate has no other claims remaining in the case against any party nor is it a

8

defendant to any claims, counterclaims, or third party claims in the case. Accordingly, all claims

9

have been finally resolved as to Agate in this multi-party, multi-claim case.

10

Certification of my prior ruling in Agate’s favor would not result in unnecessary appellate

11

review because Agate’s claims against Jaynes and Western are independent of the remaining

12

claims between Jaynes and Western and third party defendants American Steel and Ohio

13

Casualty. The question of whether Agate is entitled to payment under Jaynes’ Miller Act bond is

14

legally and factually separate from whether American Steel must indemnify Jaynes. Although the

15

claims are related in that they arise out of the same construction project and will impact who

16

ultimately will bear financial responsibility for payment to Agate, the legal issues and the factual

17

disputes remaining have no impact on whether Agate is entitled to payment. Consequently, an

18

appellate court will not have to decide the same issues more than once even if there are

19

subsequent appeals. The only judicial efficiency factor weighing against certification is that if

20

American Steel must indemnify Jaynes, that potentially would moot an appeal by Jaynes.

21

However, all other factors favor certification, including that a further delay in payment of the

22

judgment is contrary to the Miller Act’s purpose of ensuring timely payment to sub-

23

subcontractors like Agate.

24

Viewing the equities, there is no just reason to delay entering judgment. Agate has been

25

awaiting payment for several years. It should not have to wait any longer while Jaynes and

26

Western on the one hand, and American Steel and Ohio Casualty on the other, resolve disputes

27

between them. Jaynes’ Miller Act bond was obtained for the purpose of ensuring payment to sub-

28
Page 2 of 3

1

subcontractors like Agate who perform work on the project. Withholding that payment while

2

Jaynes pursues possible indemnification would require Agate to wait for resolution of a dispute in

3

which it has no participation. I understand Jaynes and Western’s desire to avoid paying if in fact

4

it turns out that American Steel or Ohio Casualty must indemnify Jaynes. But as stated in my

5

prior order, there is no genuine dispute that Jaynes and Western are liable to Agate. Whether

6

Jaynes can later obtain indemnification from other parties is a separate issue that should not delay

7

recovery by Agate.

8

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Agate Steel, Inc.’s motion for entry of

9

judgment (ECF No. 161) is GRANTED. The clerk of court shall enter judgment in favor of

10

plaintiff Agate Steel, Inc. and against defendants Jaynes Corporation and Western Surety

11

Company in the amount of $126,907.00 plus post-judgment interest at the statutory rate running

12

from the date of the judgment until paid.

13

DATED this 20th day of July, 2016.

14
15
16

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 3