Lee v. Trees, Inc. et al

Filing 116

STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT Dismissing with Prejudice all Claims between Plaintiff Sarah Lee and Defendant Paul Sims (Stipulated Motion 115 is granted). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 6th day of July, 2017, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)

Courtney Angeli, OSB No. 941765
[e-mail]
Kristine Lambert, OSB No. 010684
[e-mail]
BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL
& SULLIVAN LLP
321 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 971-230-0337
Attorneys for Defendant Paul Sims

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
SARAH LEE,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00165-AC
Plaintiff,

v.
TREES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
PAUL SIMS, an individual,

STIPULATED Fll QF6Sfilft FINAL
JUDGMENT DISMISSING WITH
PREJUDICE ALL CLAIMS
BETWEEN PLAINTIFF SARAH LEE
AND DEFENDANT PAUL SIMS

Defendants.

/)n June 16, 2017, this Court issued its Order granting defendant Sims' motion to enforce
the settlement agreement between defendant Paul Sims and plaintiff Sarah Lee (ECF No. 112).
Pursuant to that Order, all claims by Lee against Sims and all counterclaims by Sims against Lee are
dismissed with prejudice, and the settlement agreement between them is enforced. As of the date of
the Order, Lee, on behalf of herself and her respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors
and assigns shall have fully, finally and forever waived, released and discharged any and all

Page 1 - STIPULATED PR6:f6SJ!ll) FINAL JUDGMENT DISMISSING WITH
PREJUDICE ALL CLAIMS BETWEEN PLAINTIFF SARAH LEE AND DEFENDANT
PAUL SIMS

claims against Sims relating to the institution and prosecution of this litigation, and shall forever
be enjoined from instituting, maintaining or prosecuting any or all such claims. As of the date of
the Order, Sims, on behalf of himself and his respective heirs, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns shall have fully, finally and forever waived, released and discharged any
and all claims against Lee relating to the institution and prosecution of this litigation, and shall
forever be enjoined from instituting, maintaining or prosecuting any or all such claims.
Following the Comt's Order, the only claims remaining before the Court are claims between
Lee and defendant Trees, Inc.
Sims moved for entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Fed. R.Civ. P. because there
is no just reason for delay and to ensure that an appeal by Lee of the June 16, 2017, if any, occurs
immediately so that he is not prejudiced by a later appeal. No party opposes Sims' Motion for Entry
of Judgment.
Rule 54(b) requires that the judgment to be entered be final as to the claims it addresses,
and that there be no just reason for delay. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 436
(1956). A final judgment is "an ultimate disposition" as to an individual claim or party that
occurs in the course of a multiple claims action. Birkes v. Tillamook County, No. 3:09-CV-1084AC, 2012 WL 2178964, *1 (D. Or. June 13, 2012). There is a final judgment as to all claims
against Sims by Lee and all counterclaims against Lee by Sims because this Court has
determined that Sims and Lee entered into a full and final agreement to settle all claims between
them.
In determining whether there is any just reason to delay, the Court may consider whether
the claims under review are severable from the other claims in the case and whether the nature of
the claims already determined is such that no appellate court would have to decide the same
Page 1 - STIPULATED@ . :t1?Sl!ID FINAL JUDGMENT DISMISSING WITH
PREJUDICE ALL CLAIMS BETWEEN PLAINTIFF SARAH LEE AND DEFENDANT
PAUL SIMS

issues more than once even ifthere were subsequent appeals. Nw. Pipe Co. v. RLI Ins. Co., 3 :09CV-01126-BR, 2014 WL 2040073, at *1-3 (D. Or. May 16, 2014), affd, 649 F. App'x. 643 (9th
Cir. 2016). Having considered the standard for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b), the Court
finds that it is appropriate to enter judgment under Rule 54(b) as to Lee's four causes of action
against Sims and as to Sims' five counterclaims against Lee. There is no just reason to delay
entry of final judgment on these adjudicated claims and counterclaims.
First, the Court's Order eliminates all claims and counterclaims between Sims and Lee.
The claims remaining in the lawsuit are all between Lee and Trees, Inc. While the claims against
Sims and Trees have factual overlap, entry of judgment is appropriate in this case because the
factual and legal issues that form and basis of the June 16, 2017 Order and result in the Rule
54(b) certification are legally distinct and severable from any other issue remaining.
Second, there is no danger that any issue addressed on an appeal from an entry of
judgment would arise in a subsequent appeal in this matter. AmerisourceBergen Corp. v.
Dialysis! West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 954 (9 111 Cir. 2006). Any appeal would relate squarely to the
enforceability of the settlement agreement, and would not touch on the merits of the underlying
dispute.
A court may also enter judgment under Rule 54(b) if, as here, it assists in the expeditious
resolution of the case. Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). If Lee decides
to appeal the Court's Order, justice would be best served by an immediate appeal. Requiring an
appeal to be taken at this early stage will save judicial resources. Sims has not completed
discovery and, if this decision was overturned after the Lee/Trees matter was finalized, Sims
would be forced to revisit many of the underlying factual issues and resume depositions with
parties that may have also been involved in the Lee/Trees case. An entry of final judgment
Page 1- STIPULATED PR<"lF8SED FINAL JUDGMENT DISMISSING WITH
PREJUDICE ALL CLAIMS BETWEEN PLAINTIFF SARAH LEE AND DEFENDANT
PAUL SIMS

would ensure that when Lee's case goes to trial, all relevant parties and issues are included. The
underlying case does not yet have a trial date, discovery is still open, and the patties are awaiting
a decision on summary judgment. Entering final judgment under Rule 54(b) will aid all parties
in ensuring the most efficient handling of the litigation and ensure that important judicial
resources are not wasted.
Finally, it is appropriate for the Court to consider the balance of equities when
considering a final judgment. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 954-55. This balancing
favors final judgment because of the significant emotional and financial toll this matter has taken
on Sims, an individual. Allowing appeal at some unlmown future date would unnecessarily
prejudice Sims as he would need to stay involved with the case, attend hearings, and continue
reviewing discovery materials. He also would be unable to make personal financial decisions
related to his retirement while he waits for the Lee!frees matter to conclude due to possible
additional legal fees that he would incur following a later appeal.
Sims' Motion for Entry ofJudgment is granted.
There being no just reason for further delay, pursuant to Rule 54(b), the Clerk is hereby
ordered to enter final judgment in accordance with the foregoing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/ +l,

Dated thisL-t" day ofJuly, 2017.
!,_?

/
·/;.
l

Johll V. Acosta
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 1- STIPULATED PRO! 59@ FINAL JUDGMENT DISMISSING WITH
PREJUDICE ALL CLAIMS BETWEEN PLAINTIFF SARAH LEE AND DEFENDANT
PAUL SIMS