Galuten v. Williamson Medical Center et al

Filing 66

ORDER denying 63 Motion for a Final Order and Judgment Dismissing All Claims. Signed by District Judge Eli J. Richardson on 5/1/19. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.) (gb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

ALVIN GALUTEN, on behalf of the
ESTATE OF HORTENSE GALUTEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAMSON MEDICAL CENTER, et
al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:18-cv-00519
JUDGE RICHARDSON

ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Motion of Defendants Benson, Lux, Alhomoud, and Cogent
Healthcare of Tennessee, d/b/a Sound Physicians of Tennessee for a Final Order and Judgment
Dismissing All Claims Against Them (Doc. No. 63), to which no opposition has been timely filed.
The Local Rules of Court provide that failure to file a timely response to a motion shall indicate
that there is no opposition to the motion. Local Rule 7.01(b).
The Court has previously dismissed all claims against these Defendants (Doc. No. 61).
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), 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. Thus, Rule 54(b) requires two independent findings: (1) the district court must
expressly direct the entry of final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties
and (2) the district court must expressly determine that there is no just reason for delay. General
Acquisition, Inc. v. GenCorp, Inc. 23 F.3d 1022, 1026 (6th Cir. 1994).

Rule 54(b) is used to permit immediate review of certain district court orders by the
appellate court prior to ultimate disposition of the case. Indeed, the purpose of Rule 54(b) is to
avoid the possible injustice of a delay in entering judgment on a distinctly separate claim or as to
fewer than all of the parties until the final adjudication of the entire case by making an immediate
appeal available. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. Bruner, 259 F.3d 1236, 1241 (10th Cir. 2001)
(citing 10 Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure Civil 2d § 2654 at 33 (1982)).
Rule 54(b) was adopted to codify the historic rule in the federal courts that has always prohibited
piecemeal disposition of litigation and to avoid the possible injustice of a delay in judgment of a
distinctly separate claim to await adjudication of the entire case. Fine v. Tumpkin, Civil Action
No. 17-cv-2140, 2019 WL 330759, at * 1 (D. Col. Jan. 24, 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)
advisory committee’s note). And, the Rule 54(b) certification mechanism is designed to strike a
balance between the undesirability of piecemeal appeals and the need for making review available
at a time that best serves the needs of the parties. Gavitt v. Born, 835 F.3d 623, 638 (6th Cir. 2016).
Thus, cases citing Rule 54(b) involve a request for immediate appeal of an order. See, e.g.,
Davis v. Detroit Public Schools Comm. Dist., 899 F.3d 437, 441 (6th Cir. 2018) (district court had
granted plaintiffs’ motion for Rule 54(b) order because immediate appeal was warranted); Adler
v. Elk Glenn, LLC, 758 F.3d 737, 738 (6th Cir. 2014) (identifying the certification under Rule
54(b) as a certification to appeal); United States ex rel. Ibanez v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 874
F.4d 905, 913 (6th Cir. 2017) (finding district court’s certification of immediate appeal to be
proper); Ramos-Macario v. Jones, No. 3:10-00813, 2011 WL 831678, at * 15 (M.D. Tenn. Mar.
2, 2011) (district court has sound judicial discretion to determine the appropriate time when each
final decision in a multiple claims action is ready for appeal under Rule 54(b)). In the absence of

2

proper certification for an interlocutory appeal under Rule 54(b), an order disposing of fewer than
all claims in a civil action is not immediately appealable. Adler, 758 F.3d at 739.
Defendants have not cited any authority for the Court to enter final judgment merely
because they “wish to be fully and officially dismissed from this matter,” rather than to certify an
appeal. And, the Court cannot imagine that these Defendants would appeal the Court’s Order
dismissing all claims against them. Rather, it is only Plaintiff who might seek to appeal; being the
only party potentially having need of an appeal as to these Defendants, Plaintiff is the only one
who would be substantively affected by the continued postponement of the availability of an
appeal that would be occasioned by denial of Defendants’ motion. In other words, the status quo
entirely favors Defendants, and the grant of Defendants’ motion would serve to change the status
quo by opening up to Plaintiff the path to interlocutory appeal. Under these circumstances, the
Court concludes that Defendants have nothing close to a substantial justification for a final
judgment under Rule 54(b), even if they would prefer to have immediate finality (which actually
would be illusory due to the possibility of Plaintiff appealing).
The Court is aware that the claims against these Defendants are separate and distinct from
the remaining claims and that as indicated above, Plaintiff would not suffer prejudice by the grant
of Defendants’ motion. But that does not mean that the grant of Defendants’ motion would serve
the proper purposes of Rule 54(b). In its discretion, the Court finds that Defendants have not carried
their burden to show entitlement to the requested relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion (Doc. No. 63) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________________________
ELI RICHARDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3