Haile v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company et al

Filing 67

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING ENTRY OF RULE 54(B) JUDGMENT: Portland Container's Motion for Limited Judgment of Dismissal as to Portland Container Repair Only 59 is denied. Signed on 8/18/2014 by Judge Garr M. King. (pg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON

Case No. 3:13-cv-00053-KI

MUSIE W. HAILE,
Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING ENTRY OF
RULE 54(B) JUDGMENT

HICKORY SPRINGS
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a
North Carolina company;
INTERNATIONAL FOAM SUPPLY,
INC., a California corporation; SEA
MASTER LOGISTICS, INC., a California
corporation; INTERNATIONAL
CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES,
INC., a foreign corporation in the
Philippines; SHENZHEN ZHONGFU
TRADING COMPANY, a foreign
corporation in China; JOHN DOE 1;
JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE
4; and JOHN DOE 5,
Defendants.

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER DENYING ENTRY OF RULE 54(B) JUDGMENT

HICKORY SPRINGS MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, a North Carolina company,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
PORTLAND CONTAINER REPAIR
CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation,
Third-Party Defendant.

Jeffrey W. Hansen
Joseph A. Rohner IV
Smith Freed & Eberhard P.C.
111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 4300
Portland, OR 97204
Attorneys for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff
Kurt C. Peterson
Kilmer, Voorhees & Laurick, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
732 NW 19th Avenue
Portland, OR 97209-1302
Attorney for Third-Party Defendant

KING, Judge:
Plaintiff Musie Haile brings a complaint for injuries he sustained while attempting to
deliver (via semi-truck hauler) a container packed with scrap foam to defendant Hickory Springs
Manufacturing Company (“Hickory Springs”). Hickory Springs filed a third-party complaint
against Portland Container Repair Corporation (“Portland Container”), the company for which
plaintiff was working at the time of the injury. I granted Portland Container’s Motion for

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER DENYING ENTRY OF RULE 54(B) JUDGMENT

Summary Judgment against Hickory Springs’ third-party complaint. Portland Container now
seeks a judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
BACKGROUND
I.

Allegations
Plaintiff, an independent contractor who delivered goods on behalf of Portland Container,

brings a complaint based on premises liability for injuries he sustained after delivering cargo by
truck to Hickory Springs. After arriving at Hickory Springs’ property, plaintiff opened the
container and two pallets of cargo, weighing approximately 600 pounds each, fell on him.
Hickory Springs, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against Portland Container seeking
contribution and indemnity. I dismissed Hickory Springs’ third-party complaint because, in
short, I agreed with Portland Container that Hickory Springs’ contribution and indemnity claims
were not viable based on the facts of the case and the relationship of the parties.
I granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the American company
who sold the cargo to Hickory Springs (International Foam). Plaintiff separately dismissed the
negligence claims against the shipper (Sea Master) and the company responsible for removing
the container from the ship (International Container Terminal Services). Upon the stipulation of
the parties, I entered a judgment dismissing Sea Master pursuant to Rule 54(b). Plaintiff has
failed to serve the Chinese company who sold the foam to the American seller (Shenzhen
Zhongfu Company) and the John Does responsible for packing the cargo.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Rule 54(b) provides:

Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER DENYING ENTRY OF RULE 54(B) JUDGMENT

When an action presents more than one claim for relief–whether as a claim,
counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party 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.
In determining whether such a judgment is appropriate, the Supreme Court has suggested
the court consider “whether the claims under review were separable from the others remaining to
be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already determined was such that no
appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were
subsequent appeals.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980).
DISCUSSION
Portland Container seeks a Rule 54(b) judgment because (1) there is a final disposition on
the claims against it; (2) the surviving claims against Hickory Springs are not related to the
dismissed claims; and (3) other defendants have been dismissed and Portland Container should
receive the same benefit.
I am not persuaded by Portland Container’s arguments as it has not explained why it
needs an early judgment. Furthermore, even if it had, I cannot conclude that any need for early
judgment outweighs the possibility of unnecessary appellate proceedings. As Hickory Springs
points out, the claims it alleged against Portland Container are derivative of plaintiff’s claims
against it; resolution of the case against plaintiff will render moot any need to appeal my

Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER DENYING ENTRY OF RULE 54(B) JUDGMENT

dismissal of Hickory Springs’ third-party complaint against Portland Container.1 Additionally,
the Rule 54(b) judgment dismissing the claims against Sea Master was pursuant to a stipulation
of the parties.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, I deny Portland Container’s Motion for Limited Judgment of
Dismissal as to Portland Container Repair Only [59].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

18th

day of August, 2014.

/s/ Garr M. King
Garr M. King
United States District Judge

1

Plaintiff also raises the distinct possibility of other defendants such as International Foam
seeking an early judgment, creating the possibility of three future, separate appeals.

Page 5 - OPINION AND ORDER DENYING ENTRY OF RULE 54(B) JUDGMENT