Caleb et al v. Grier et al

Filing 113

ORDER denying as moot 112 MOTION Advisory Regarding Federal and State Court Discovery and Request for Consideration by Court of All Defendant's Previous Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, granting in part, denying in part 109 Joint MO TION for Certification and Entry of Final Judgment. After entry of the Final Judgment separately signed this day in accordance with the foregoing rulings, all future filings in the remaining case of Mable Caleb against Defendants Grier and HI SD, shall add to the cause number an "A," so as to read, "Civil Action No. H-12-0675-A," and shall be entitled, "Mable Caleb, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Terry Grier and Houston Independent School District,Defendants."(Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified.(kcarr, 4)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MABLE CALEB, JACKIE ANDERSON,
DIANN BANKS, HERBERT LENTON,
and PATRICK COCKERHAM,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-12-0675

DR. TERRY GRIER, ELIZABETH MATA §
KROGER, DAVID FRIZELL, ESTEBAN §
MAJLAT, and HOUSTON INDEPENDENT §
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
§
§
§

Defendants.

ORDER
Pending is Defendants Terry Grier, Houston Independent School
District

("HISD"),

Elizabeth

Mata

Kroger,

David

Frizell,

and

Esteban Majlat's Joint Motion for Certification and Entry of Final
Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b)

(Document No. 109).1

The Motion is

based on this Court's June 14, 2013 Order dismissing with prejudice
all claims made by Plaintiffs Mable Caleb, Jackie Anderson, Diann
Banks,

Herbert Lenton,

David

Frizzell,

and Patrick Cockerham against Defendants

Esteban

Majlat,

and

Elizabeth

Mata

Kroger;

dismissing with prejudice all claims made by Plaintiffs Anderson,
Banks,
HISDi

Lenton,

and Cockerham against Defendants Terry Grier and

and dismissing with prejudice all claims of Plaintiff Caleb

1 Defendants' Advisory Regarding Federal and State Court
Discovery and Request for Consideration by Court of All Defendants'
Previous Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (Document No. 112) is
DENIED as moot in light of this Order.

against Defendants Grier and HISD except for her First Amendment
retaliation and liberty interest due process claims. 2

Plaintiffs

have filed no response to this motion, which is therefore deemed
unopposed pursuant to Local Rule 7.4.

After carefully considering

the motion and applicable law, the Court concludes as follows.
Rule 54(b) provides:
When 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.
Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

54(b).

A district

court deciding whether to

certify a judgment under Rule 54(b) must determine (1) whether it
is dealing with a "final judgment," and (2) whether there is any
just reason for delay.

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co.,

100 S.Ct. 1460, 1464-65 (1980).

The judgment is final if it is "an

ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course
of a multiple claims action."

Id. at 1464 (quoting Sears, Roebuck

& Co. v. Mackey, 76 S.Ct. 895, 900 (1956)).

"[I]n deciding whether

there are no just reasons to delay the appeal of individual final
judgments

, 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

2

Document No. 98.
2

of the Rule effectively

'preserves the historic federal policy

against piecemeal appeals.

'11

at 901).
only

Id. at 1465 (quoting Sears, 76 S.Ct.

Rule 54(b) motions are disfavored and should be granted

"when

there

exists

some

danger of

hardship

or

injustice

through delay which would be alleviated by immediate appeal.

II

PYCA

Indus., Inc. v. Harrison Cnty. Waste Mgmt., 81 F.3d 1412, 1421 (5th
Cir. 1996).
In the present case, the Court's dismissal with prejudice of
all

claims made

by all

Plaintiffs

against

Defendants

Frizell,

Kroger, and Majlat, and dismissal with prejudice of all claims made
by

Plaintiffs

Anderson,

Banks,

Lenton,

and

Cockerham

against

Defendants HISD and Grier were "ultimate dispositions" of those
claims. 3

The only remaining claims are those of Plaintiff Caleb

against Grier and HISD.

Under these circumstances, it would be an

unnecessary waste of resources to require the other seven parties
to continue monitoring Caleb's case against HISD and Grier, or to
delay the four dismissed Plaintiffs from perfecting an appeal if
they wish to do so.

The Court finds that there is no just reason

for delay in directing the entry of final judgment dismissing with
prejudice all claims made by Plaintiffs Anderson, Banks, Lenton,
and Cockerham against all Defendants, and dismissing with prejudice
all claims made by Plaintiff Caleb against Defendants Frizell,
Kroger, and Majlat.

3

Document No. 98.
3

Grier's and HISD's motion to direct entry of Final Judgment in
their favor as to those of Caleb's claims against HISD and Grier
that were dismissed with prejudice is not meritorious.
would

unnecessarily

incur

a

risk

of

piecemeal

appeals,

concomitant waste of

judicial resources at both the

appellate

possible

level,

and

delay

in

the

To do so

trial

the

trial and
of

Caleb's

remaining claims while awaiting the results of an appeal on her
dismissed

claims,

all

of

which

weigh

against

certification.

Defendants argue that certification is warranted to allow Grier to
pursue a res judicata defense in a separate state lawsuit between
the parties, but the Court has no information as to the contours of
that

litigation. 4

Regardless,

because

Rule

54 (b)

motions

are

generally disfavored, and Caleb's remaining claims against Grier
and HISD in this case at least tangentially relate to and look back
upon much of the same set of facts as the dismissed claims, there
is good reason not to enter a final judgment dismissing some of
Caleb's claims against Grier and HISD while leaving others still to
be tried.
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that Defendants' Joint Motion for Certification and
Entry of Final Judgment (Docket No. 109) pursuant to Rule 54(b) is
GRANTED

as

to

all

dismissed

claims

made

by

Plaintiffs

Jackie

4 Defendants'
Motion refers to Exhibits A and B, supposedly
pleadings in the State lawsuit, but no exhibits were filed with the
motion.
See Document No. 109 at 7.

4

Anderson,

Diann

Banks,

Herbert

Lenton

and

Patrick

Cockerham,

against all Defendants; and is GRANTED as to all of Plaintiff Mable
Caleb's dismissed claims against Defendants Elizabeth Mata Kroger,
David Frizell and Esteban Majlat; and DENIED as to Plaintiff Mable
Caleb's dismissed claims against Defendants Terry Grier and HISD.
After entry of the Final Judgment separately signed this day
in accordance with the foregoing rulings, all future filings in the
remaining case of Mable Caleb against Defendants Grier and HISD,
shall add to the cause number an "A," so as to read, "Civil Action
No. H-12-0675-A," and shall be entitled,
v.

Dr.

Terry

Grier

and

Houston

"Mable Caleb, Plaintiff,

Independent

School

District,

Defendants."
The Clerk will enter this Order and provide a correct copy to
all parties.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this

It/
~~y

of October, 2013.

WERLEIN, JR.
TES DISTRICT JUDGE

5