Livingston et al v. Luberoff et al

Filing 115

ORDER granting 113 Motion for Leave to Appeal. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 5/8/2020.(asni, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Michael Livingston; Heather Livingston,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
Susan Luberoff, M.D.; South Carolina Department )
of Social Services; Richland County Sheriff’s
)
Department; Misty Puckett, Richland County
)
Deputy Sheriff; Don Robinson, Richland County
)
Lieutenant; Kevin Preston,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-01985-JMC

ORDER

This action arises from an investigation of Plaintiffs Michael Livingston and Heather
Livingston for alleged child abuse. The matter before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to
Appeal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). (ECF No. 113.) On February 21, 2020, the court granted
motions for summary judgment for the South Carolina Department of Social Services and the
Richland County Sheriff’s Department, Deputy Sheriff Misty Puckett, Lieutenant Don Robinson,
and Kevin Preston (collectively “RCSD Defendants”). (ECF No. 104 (noting that “the only cause
of action remaining is Plaintiffs’ defamation claim against Defendant Susan Luberoff”).)
I. LEGAL STANDARD AND DISCUSSION
Rule 54(b) permits district courts to authorize immediate appeal of dispositive rulings on
separate claims in a civil action raising multiple claims: “When an action presents more than one
claim for relief . . . 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). It was adopted “in view of
the breadth of the civil action the Rules allow, specifically to avoid the possible injustice of
1

delay[ing] judgment o[n] a distinctly separate claim [pending] adjudication of the entire case.”
Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp., 574 U.S. 405, 408 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Moreover, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has stated that “[t]he chief
purpose of a Rule 54(b) certification is to prevent piecemeal appeals when multiple claims are
resolved in the course of a single lawsuit.” Braswell Shipyards, Inc. v. Beazer E., Inc., 2 F.3d 1331,
1335 (4th Cir. 1993). Moreover, “Rule 54(b) certification is recognized as the exception rather
than the norm. It should neither be granted routinely, nor as an accommodation to counsel.” Id.
(citations omitted). “The burden is on the party endeavoring to obtain Rule 54(b) certification to
demonstrate that the case warrants certification.” Id. (citation omitted). First, the district court must
determine whether the judgment is final, in other words, that it is “an ultimate disposition of an
individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). Second, “the district court must determine whether there is no just reason for the delay
in the entry of judgment.” Id.
Here, Plaintiffs claim that “Order and Opinion (ECF No. 104) is a final judgment in all but
name only. The issue of probable cause is the main issue in this case as against the dismissed
Defendants” and “no just reason for delay exists.” (ECF No. 113 at 2.) RCSD Defendants filed a
Response consenting to “the entry of final judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims against them
. . . RCSD Defendants agree only that it would be a proper exercise of the [c]ourt’s discretion under
Rule 54(b) to enter final judgment on all federal and state claims alleged against all of the
dismissed Defendants, including RCSD Defendants.” (ECF No. 114 at 2.)
The court finds that the Order and Opinion judgment entered on February 21, 2020, is final
and that there is no just reason for delay in the entry of judgment. See Braswell Shipyards, 2 F.3d
at 1335.

2

II. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs Michael Livingston and
Heather Livingston’s Motion for Leave to Appeal (ECF No. 113).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
May 8, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina

3