MARINA DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC v. IVEY et al

Filing 122

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying 120 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). Plaintiff shall resume prosecution of its claims against Gemaco, Inc., by renewing its motion for summary judgment, or by seeking other relief that would resolve the claims between Plaintiff and Gemaco, Inc. so that final judgment may be entered on Plaintiff's claims against Ivey and Sun. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 6/6/2017. (tf, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MARINA DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT
CO., LLC doing business as
BORGATA HOTEL CASINO & SPA,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL NO. 14-2283(NLH/AMD)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER

v.
PHILLIP D. IVEY, JR., GEMACO
INC., and CHENG YIN SUN,
Defendants.

Appearances:
JEREMY M. KLAUSNER
AGOSTINO & ASSOCIATES, PC
14 WASHINGTON PLACE
HACKENSACK, NJ 07601
On behalf of plaintiff
JEFFREY W. MAZZOLA
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM E. STAEHLE
445 South Street
P.O. BOX 1938
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07962-1938
On behalf of defendant Gemaco, Inc.
EDWIN JOSEPH JACOBS, JR.
MICHAEL F. MYERS
LOUIS M. BARBONE
JACOBS & BARBONE
1125 PACIFIC AVENUE
ATLANTIC CITY, NJ 08401
On behalf of defendants Phillip D. Ivey and Cheng Yin Sun

HILLMAN, District Judge
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2016, this Court granted summary
judgment in Plaintiff’s favor on its breach of contract claims
against Defendants Phillip D. Ivey and Cheng Yin Sun (Docket No.
117, 118), and ordered that Plaintiff was entitled to judgment
in the amount of $10,130,000.00 (Docket No. 119); and
WHEREAS, on that same date, this Court denied without
prejudice the cross-motions for summary judgment of Plaintiff
and Defendant Gemaco, Inc. because when they filed their
motions, they did not have the benefit of the Court’s Opinion
that granted judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Ivey and
Sun on Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims (Docket No. 116);
and
WHEREAS, Ivey and Sun thereafter filed a motion for entry
of judgment (Docket No. 12) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b),
which provides:
When an action presents more than one claim for relief whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or thirdparty claim - or when multiple parties are involved, the
court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or
more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the
court expressly determines that there is no just reason for
delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however
designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or
the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties
does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties
and may be revised at any time before the entry of a
judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’
rights and liabilities.
WHEREAS, Ivey and Sun also request in their motion that the
2

judgment entered against them should be stayed without bond
pending appeal, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(h), which
provides:
A court may stay the enforcement of a final judgment
entered under Rule 54(b) until it enters a later judgment
or judgments, and may prescribe terms necessary to secure
the benefit of the stayed judgment for the party in whose
favor it was entered.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has joined in on Ivey and Sun’s motion
for entry of judgment, but it opposes their request to stay the
enforcement of the judgment pending appeal; and
WHEREAS, the Court notes that Rule 54(b) was “designed in
an attempt ‘to strike a balance between the undesirability of
piecemeal appeals and the need for making review available at a
time that best serves the needs of the parties,’” Berckeley Inv.
Group, Ltd. v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 202 (3d Cir. 2006)
(quoting Allis–Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 521
F.2d 360, 363 (3d Cir. 1975)); and
WHEREAS, the Court further notes that Rule 54(b) requires
the finding that there is “no just reason for delay,” and that a
court should consider several factors in making that
determination: “‘(1) the relationship between the adjudicated
and unadjudicated claims; (2) the possibility that the need for
review might or might not be mooted by future developments in
the district court; (3) the possibility that the reviewing court
might be obliged to consider the same issue a second time; (4)
3

the presence or absence of a claim or counterclaim which could
result in set-off against the judgment sought to be made final;
and (5) miscellaneous factors such as delay, economic and
solvency considerations, shortening the time of trial, frivolity
of competing claims, expense, and the like,’” Berckeley, 455
F.3d at 203 (quoting Allis–Chalmers Corp., 521 F.2d at 364); and
WHEREAS, the Court has considered the parties’ arguments,
and finds that the above factors do not support a finding of “no
just reason for delay” because (1) Plaintiff’s claims against
Gemaco are currently ripe for resolution since they were the
subject of pending summary judgment motions at the time of the
Court’s decision on Plaintiff’s claims against Ivey and Sun, and
(2) resolving all of Plaintiff’s claims arising out of the edgesorting technique used by Ivey and Sun with Gemaco playing cards
which serves as the basis for all of Plaintiff’s claims against
Ivey, Sun and Gemaco would prevent duplicative review by the
court of appeals;
THEREFORE,
IT IS on this

6th

day of

June

, 2017

ORDERED that the MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule
54(b) by PHILLIP D. IVEY, JR. [120] be, and the same hereby is,
DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall resume prosecution of its
claims against Gemaco, Inc., by renewing its motion for summary
4

judgment, or by seeking other relief, see, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a), that would resolve the claims between Plaintiff and
Gemaco, Inc. so that final judgment may be entered on
Plaintiff’s claims against Ivey and Sun.

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

5