Estate of James Oscar Smith et al v. Cash Money Records, Inc. et al

Filing 170

OPINION & ORDER re: 163 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) filed by Hebrew Hustle Inc., Estate of James Oscar Smith: Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Opinion as final is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at ECF No. 163. (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 10/4/2017) (jwh) (Main Document 170 replaced on 10/4/2017) (jwh).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
:
ESTATE OF JAMES OSCAR
SMITH, et ano.,
:
Plaintiffs,
-againstCASH MONEY RECORDS, INC., et al.,

14cv2703

:

OPINION & ORDER

:
:

Defendants.
:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
WILLIAM H. PAULEY III, District Judge:
Plaintiffs The Estate of James Oscar Smith and Hebrew Hustle Inc. (“Plaintiffs”)
move to certify this Court’s May 30, 2017 Opinion & Order (the “Opinion”) as “final” under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The Opinion granted Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claims. (Opinion & Order, ECF No.
135.) The parties continue to litigate Defendants’ counterclaims under the Lanham Act and
related California state law.
Rule 54(b) allows a district court to enter a final judgment “as to one or more, but
fewer than all, claims or parties . . . only when three requirements have been satisfied: (1) there
are multiple claims or parties; (2) at least one claim or the rights and liabilities of at least one
party have been finally determined; and (3) the court makes an express determination that there
is no just reason for delay.” Acumen Re Mgmt. Corp. v. Gen. Sec. Nat’l Ins. Co., 769 F.3d 135,
140 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b)). In light of the historic federal policy against
piecemeal appeals, “[c]ertification under Rule 54(b) should be granted only where there are
interests of sound judicial administration and efficiency to be served.” Hogan v. Consol. Rail

-1-

Corp., 961 F.2d 1021, 1025 (2d Cir. 1992) (internal citation and alterations omitted).
The parties agree that this litigation involves multiple claims and that the Opinion
finally determined Plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claims. District judges must “take into
account judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved” in deciding whether
there exists no just reason for delay of an appeal. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446
U.S. 1, 8 (1980).
While the copyright infringement claims addressed in the Opinion involved
distinct factual and legal questions from Defendants’ counterclaims, that alone is not sufficient to
warrant Rule 54(b) certification. Courts are also required to weigh the equities. To establish that
the equities favor an immediate appeal, a party must generally show “there exists some danger of
hardship or injustice through delay which would be alleviated by immediate appeal.” Hogan,
961 F.2d at 1025 (internal citation omitted). Here, Plaintiffs are not waiting to collect on a
judgment and have not sufficiently demonstrated any true hardship or injustice that warrants
departing from the standard federal policy against piecemeal appeals. See Hogan, 961 F.2d at
1025 (reversing a district court’s certification under Rule 54(b) because there was no indication
of “unusual hardship in requiring plaintiff” to wait for the disposition of the entire case); In re
Vivendi Universal, S.A., Sec. Litig., 2012 WL 362028 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2012) (denying a Rule
54(b) motion in part because plaintiffs were not waiting to collect on a monetary award and had
not demonstrated any other harm in waiting).
Moreover, fact discovery on Defendants’ counterclaims is ongoing and scheduled
to be completed shortly. Therefore, it is likely that Defendants’ counterclaims can be
adjudicated by this Court within the span of a few more months. With an eye to the Second
Circuit’s calendar, the interest of judicial economy thus also militates in favor of denial of

-2-

certification so that there is only one appeal instead of two.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the Opinion as final is denied. The
Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at ECF No. 163.

Dated: October 4, 2017
New York, New York

SO ORDERED:
_____________________________
WILLIAM H. PAULEY III
U.S.D.J.

-3-