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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?