In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Products Liability Litigation

Filing 4350

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: (176 in 1:14-cv-01014-SAS) MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) filed by Tauber Oil, (652 in 1:07-cv-10470-SAS) MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) filed by Tauber Oil. For the aforementioned reasons, the request for a 54(b) final judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter final judgment for Tauber Oil Company and close these motions (07 Civ. 10470, Dkt. No. 652; 14 Civ. 01014, Dkt. No. 176). (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 12/31/2015) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:00-cv-01898-SAS-DCF, 1:07-cv-10470-SAS, 1:14-cv-01014-SAS(kko)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------- )(
IN RE: METHYL TERTIARY BUTYL
ETHER ("MTBE") PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Master File No. 1:00-1898
MDL 1358 (SAS)
M21-88

This document relates to:
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, et al. v.
Shell Oil Co., et al., 07 Civ. 10470, and

..usnc snNY ·

Commonwealth ofPuerto Rico, et al. v.
Shell Oil Co., et al., 14 Civ. 01014

DOCUMENT
I
l ELECTRONICALLY FILED
1
iI DOC#:
1l
'
I D~_!2!--ED:
!j

!;

----------------------------------------------------- )(

l_.

SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, U.S.D.J.:
I.

1'1

J]j3J./D__,_

. --=.:.:·~--·-·-·-...=:::==~::~.:

INTRODUCTION
This is a consolidated multi-district litigation ("MDL") relating to

contamination-actual or threatened-of groundwater from various defendants'
use of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether ("MTBE") and/or tertiary
butyl alcohol, a product formed by the breakdown ofMTBE in water. In these
cases, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico ("the Commonwealth") alleges that
defendants' use and handling of MTBE has contaminated, or threatened to
contaminate groundwater within its jurisdiction. Familiarity with the underlying
facts is presumed for the purposes of this Order.
1

Defendant Tauber Oil Company was dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction in both the Puerto Rico I and Puerto Rico II cases on May 5, 2014. 1
Tauber now requests, without opposition, that this Court enter final judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). For the reasons stated below, that
request is GRANTED.

II.

APPLICABLE LAW
In order to reach the conclusion that a final judgment under Rule

54(b) is appropriate, a court must determine that three requirements are satisfied:
"( 1) there are multiple claims or parties; (2) at least one claim or the rights and
liabilities of at least one party has been finally determined; and (3) the court makes
an 'express [ ] determin[ ation] that there is no just reason for delay. "'2
As to the third determination, "[i]t is left to the sound judicial
discretion of the district court to determine the 'appropriate time' when each final
decision in a multiple claims action is ready for appeal." 3 In so deciding, the Court
"must take into account judicial administrative interests as well as the equities

See In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 07 Civ. 10470, 2014 WL
1778984 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2014).
2

Acumen Re Mgmt. Corp. v. General Sec. Nat. Ins. Co., 769 F.3d 135,
140 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)) (alterations in original).
3

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980)
(quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351U.S.427, 435 (1956)).
2

involved. Consideration of the former is necessary to assure that application of the
Rule effectively 'preserves the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals. "' 4

III.

DISCUSSION
There can be no dispute that the first two factors are met. There are

multiple defendants still involved in both cases and dismissal for lack of personal
jurisdiction finally determined all of Tauber's rights and liabilities.
Lastly, there is no just reason for delay. The issue of personal
jurisdiction implicates only Tauber, and piecemeal appeals do not greatly implicate
judicial efficiency where there are no issues overlapping with the remaining
defendants. 5 Because trial proceedings have not yet begun in either action,
allowing for an appeal now will avoid the high cost of a duplicative trial should
Tauber be reinstated after a final judgment is entered as to all remaining
defendants. 6
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the request for a 54(b) final judgment

4

Id. (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 U.S. at 438).

5

See Advanced Magnetics, Inc. v. Bayfront Partners, Inc., 106 F .3d 11,
17 (2d Cir. 1997).
6

See In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 04 Civ. 4968, 2015 WL
7758530, at *2-4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2015) (discussing the costs and complexity of
conducting a trial on MTBE contamination).
3

is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter final judgment for Tauber
Oil Company and close these motions (07 Civ. 10470, Dkt. No. 652; 14 Civ.
01014, Dkt. No. 176).

Dated:

New York, New York
December 31, 2015

4

- Appearances Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs:
Robin Greenwald, Esq.
Robert Gordon, Esq.
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
[phone]

Counsel for the Commonwealth:
Michael Axline, Esq.
Miller, Axline, & Sawyer
1050 Fulton Avenue, Suite 10
Sacramento, CA 95825
[phone]

Liaison Counsel for Defendants:
Peter John Sacripanti, Esq.
James A. Pardo, Esq.
McDermott Will & Emery LLP
50 Rockefeller Plaza, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10020
[phone]

Counsel for Tauber Oil Company:
Michael A. Walsh, Esq.
Strasburger & Price, LLP
901 Main Street, Suite 4300
Dallas, TX 75202
[phone]

5