Johnson v. Synovus Bank et al

Filing 58

ORDER DENYING SYNOVUS BANK'S MOTION 55 FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 8/19/2015. (Anderson, S.)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

B. JOHNSON and M. JOHNSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 2:14-cv-2950-STA-dkv
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
SYNOVUS BANK; CRIMSON
PORTFOLIO, LLC; CRIMSON
PORTFOLIO ALPHA, LLC; CRIMSON
PORTFOLIO BETA, LLC; MOUNTAIN
VIEW MORTGAGE OPPORTUNITIES
FUND III TRUST I; CARRINGTON
MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC; STATE
BRIDGE COMPANY, LLC; SELENE
FINANCIAL, LP.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING SYNOVUS BANK’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
FINAL JUDGMENT

Before the Court is Defendant Synovus Bank’s Rule 54(b) Motion for Final Judgment,
filed July 21, 2015. (ECF No. 55). Plaintiffs Brian Johnson and Monika Johnson have not
responded. For the reasons stated below, Synovus’s Motion is DENIED.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that
[w]hen an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether
as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, 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
1

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.1
In ruling on a Rule 54(b) motion, the Court must first determine whether there is a “‘judgment’ .
. . in the sense that it is a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief,” and whether the judgment
is “‘final’ in the sense that it is ‘an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the
course of a multiple claims action.’”2 The Court dismissed all of the Johnsons’ claims against
Synovus on July 1, 2015, adjudicating each and every claim against a single party. Under the
Rule, it is a “final judgment.”
Second, the Court must determine whether there is any “just reason for delay.” The
Supreme Court cautioned that “a district court must take into account judicial administrative
interests as well as the equities involved. Consideration of the former is necessary to assure that
application of the Rule effectively ‘preserves the historic federal policy against piecemeal
appeals.’”3 The Sixth Circuit has identified a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider when
deciding whether to enter judgment under Rule 54(b):
(1) the relationship between the adjudicated claim and the
unadjudicated claims; (2) the possibility that the need for
review might or might not be mooted by future developments
in the district court; (3) the possibility that the reviewing court
might be obliged to consider the same issues a second time; (4)
the presence or absence of a claim or counterclaim which could
result in set-off against the judgment sought to be made final;
(5) miscellaneous factors such as delay, economic and

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
2

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980) (quoting Sears, Roebuck
& Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 438 (1956)).
3

Id. at 8.
2

solvency considerations, shortening the time of trial, frivolity
of competing claims, expense, and the like.4
Synovus only discusses the first factor in its Motion. Under the first factor, the claims upon
which the party seeks final judgment “should generally be separate and independent [from the
other claims remaining] so that the appellate court will not have to consider the same issues
again if a second appeal is brought.”5 In this multiple-parties, multiple-claims action, the claims
against the remaining parties are closely related to the now-dismissed claims brought against
Synovus.
The interpretation of a loan modification, deed of trust, and other documents led to
dismissal of the claims against Synovus. The same documents form the bases for the claims
remaining against other defendants: (1) breach of contract against Crimson Portfolio, LLC; (2)
breach of contract against Carrington Mortgage, Inc.; (3) breach of the implied covenant of good
faith against Crimson Portfolio, LLC and Carrington Mortgage, Inc.; and (4) violation of the
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act against Crimson Protfolio, LLC and Carrington Mortgage,
Inc. If the Court entered judgment and the Plaintiffs appealed twice, the Sixth Circuit would
have to interpret the same loan modification agreement, deed of trust, and other documents in
both appeals. The third factor, then, weighs heavily against entry of final judgment.
Rule 54(b) is “not to be used routinely, or as an accommodation to counsel.” 6 While the
Court is sympathetic to Synovus’s desire for “prompt closure” to avoid “unnecessary
expenditure of time and money” for future monitoring of the case, the historic federal policy
4

Pittman ex rel. Sykes v. Franklin, 282 F. App’x 418, 430 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Corrosioneering, Inc. v. Thyseen Envtl. Sys., Inc., 807 F.2d 1279, 1283 (6th Cir. 1986)) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
5

Justice v. Pendleton Place Apartments, 40 F.3d 139, 141 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing 10 Charles
A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2659 (1983)).
6
Local Union No. 1812, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bethenergy Mines, Inc., 992 F.2d 569, 572 (6th Cir. 1993).

3

against piecemeal appeals must outweigh any inconvenience to Synovus. Thus, the Court finds
just cause to delay entry of final judgment as to the claims against Synovus, and Synovus’s
Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
HON. S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Date: August 19, 2015.

4