Horn et al v. Medical Marijuana, Inc. et al
Filing
115
DECISION AND ORDER denying 102 104 Plaintiffs' Motions for Partial Judgment under Rule 54(b). SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 10/2/2019. (MFM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DOUGLAS J. HORN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case # 15-CV-701-FPG
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Douglas J. Horn and Cindy Harp-Horn bring suit against Defendants Medical
Marijuana, Inc. (“MMI”), Dixie Elixirs and Edibles (“Dixie LLC”), Red Dice Holdings, LLC
(“RDH”), and Dixie Botanicals. ECF No. 1. On April 17, 2019, the Court granted in part and
denied in part MMI’s, Dixie LLC’s, and RDH’s motions for summary judgment. ECF No. 88.
Specifically, the Court dismissed all but two claims: Douglas’s claims for fraudulent inducement
and civil RICO. See id. at 28-29. On May 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. ECF No.
92. They now move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) for entry of partial final judgment
as to Cindy’s claims and Douglas’s claims under Sections 349 and 350 of New York General
Business Law. ECF Nos. 102, 104. Defendants object. ECF Nos. 108, 109. For the reasons that
follow, Plaintiffs’ motions are DENIED.
DISCUSSION
Under Rule 54(b), an order 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
1
parties’ rights and liabilities.” The rule is grounded in the “historic federal policy against
piecemeal appeals.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980). But the rule
also provides an exception: if the court “expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay,”
it may “direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). This rule is to be “exercised sparingly” and only where the “interests of
sound judicial administration and efficiency will be served.” Cupersmith v. Piaker & Lyons P.C.,
No. 14-CV-1303, 2017 WL 4535938, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2017) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
“In deciding whether there are no just reasons to delay the appeal of individual final
judgments a district court should consider such factors as whether the claims under review are
separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already
determined is such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once
even if there were subsequent appeals.” Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see
also Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, 642 F.3d 304, 311 (2d Cir. 2011) (“[W]e have repeatedly noted
that the district court generally should not grant a Rule 54(b) certification if the same or closely
related issues remain to be litigated.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). “Claims are generally
treated as separable within the meaning of Rule 54(b) if they involve at least some different
questions of fact and law and could be separately enforced, or if different sorts of relief are sought.”
Verizon N.Y. Inc. v. Vill. of Westhampton Beach, No. CV 11-252, 2014 WL 12843520, at *9
(E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2014).
The Court declines to grant Plaintiffs’ motions under Rule 54(b). Both the surviving claims
and the failed claims arise from the same underlying set of facts: Plaintiffs’ purchase and use of
Defendants’ product and Douglas’s subsequent failed drug test. Thus, if Plaintiffs were permitted
2
to appeal some of their claims, the Second Circuit would be “forced to review identical facts” in
any subsequent appeal after trial. Nat’l Asbestos Workers Med. Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 71 F.
Supp. 2d 139, 154 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). This is likely here because Cindy’s claims are not merely
related to, but derivative of, Douglas’s claims. See, e.g., Pierce v. City of New York, No. 16-CV5703, 2018 WL 679459, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2018) (declining to enter partial judgment on
failure-to-intervene claim because it was “derivative of” surviving excessive-force claim); Ortiz v.
Goord, No. 99-CV-1202, 2006 WL 8448449, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2006) (same). The
interconnection is even stronger with respect to Douglas’s surviving and failed claims. In short, it
would not “advance the interests of sound judicial administration of efficiency to have piecemeal
appeals that require two . . . three-judge panels to familiarize themselves with [the] . . . case in
successive appeals.” In re Vivendi Universal, S.A., Secs. Litig., No. 02 Civ. 5571, 2012 WL
362028, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2012).
Furthermore, there are no countervailing equities that would justify partial judgment
notwithstanding the relatedness of the claims at issue. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument, the mere
risk that Plaintiffs could incur additional expenses if a second trial is required is not enough to
justify partial judgment under these circumstances. See, e.g., Spiegel v. Tr. of Tufts Coll., 843 F.2d
38, 46 (1st Cir. 1988) (“Virtually any interlocutory appeal from a dispositive ruling said to be
erroneous contains the potential for requiring a retrial.”). Indeed, that risk is less salient given that
at least some of Plaintiffs’ causes of action provide for an award of attorney’s fees. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 1964(c); N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(h). The Court also does not find convincing Plaintiffs’
concern that Cindy would be placed in a prejudicial position if she were to testify at Douglas’s
trial.
3
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiffs’ motions for partial judgment under Rule 54(b)
(ECF Nos. 102, 104) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 2, 2019
Rochester, New York
______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?