The Dolsen Companies et al v. QBE Insurance Company et al

Filing 121

ORDER DENYING RULE 54(b) CERTIFICATION OF JUDGMENT. Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on Ruling Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) ECF No. 71 is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

THE DOLSEN COMPANIES, a
Washington Corporation, et al.,

NO. 1:16-CV-3141-TOR

8
Plaintiffs,
9

ORDER DENYING RULE 54(b)
CERTIFICATION OF JUDGMENT

v.
10
11
12

BEDIVERE INSURANCE COMPANY,
f/k/a ONEBEACON, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on Ruling

15

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (ECF No. 71). This matter was submitted for

16

consideration without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files

17

herein, and is fully informed.

18

BACKGROUND

19

The Court previously granted Defendants Motions for Partial Summary

20

Judgment, holding Defendants did not have a duty to defend or indemnify

ORDER DENYING RULE 54(b) CERTIFICATION OF JUDGMENT ~ 1

1

Plaintiffs in the underlying CARE litigation. ECF No. 70. Plaintiffs now move

2

for entry of a partial judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) to enable Plaintiffs

3

to immediately appeal the Court’s order. Plaintiffs further request that the Court

4

stay all remaining claims in this action pending Plaintiffs’ appeal. ECF No. 71.

5

Defendants oppose the Motion. ECF No. 75.

6
7

DISCUSSION
Rule 54(b) allows courts to “direct entry of a final judgment as to one or

8

more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines

9

that there is no just reason for delay.” “[I]n deciding whether there are no just

10

reasons to delay the appeal of individual final judgments [. . .], a district court must

11

take into account judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved.

12

Consideration of the former is necessary to assure that application of the Rule

13

effectively ‘preserves the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals.’”

14

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980) (citation omitted).

15

The district court evaluates “such factors as the interrelationship of the claims so as

16

to prevent piecemeal appeals in cases which should be reviewed only as single

17

units.” Id. at 10. “[O]nce such juridical concerns have been met, the discretionary

18

judgment of the district court should be given substantial deference, for that court

19

is ‘the one most likely to be familiar with the case and with any justifiable reasons

20

for delay.’” Id. (citation omitted).

ORDER DENYING RULE 54(b) CERTIFICATION OF JUDGMENT ~ 2

1

Rule 54(b) has a proper place. The Rule was adopted “specifically to avoid

2

the possible injustice of delaying judgment on a distinctly separate claim pending

3

adjudication of the entire case. . . . The Rule thus aimed to augment, not diminish,

4

appeal opportunity.” Jewel v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 810 F.3d 622, 628 (9th Cir. 2015)

5

(internal brackets omitted, citing Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 135 S.Ct. 897,

6

902–03(2015)). The Ninth Circuit first asks “whether the certified order is

7

sufficiently divisible from the other claims such that the “case would [not]

8

inevitably come back to this court on the same set of facts.” Id. (citation omitted).

9

The equitable analysis ordinarily “is left to the sound judicial discretion of the

10

district court to determine the ‘appropriate time’ when each final decision in a

11

multiple claims action is ready for appeal.” Id. (citation omitted). Finally, the

12

appeal must meet the “no just reason for delay” prong of Rule 54(b). Id. at 630.

13

An appeal should not be certified if interlocutory review is more likely to cause

14

additional delay than it is to ameliorate delay problems.

15

Here, while the insurance contract coverage issue is somewhat separable

16

from the IFCA, bad faith and CPA claims, all arise from the same sets of insurance

17

policies and share a common factual background. Plaintiffs’ somewhat parallel

18

claims should be analyzed on appeal as a single unit so as not to cause additional

19

delay. Certainly, the delay Plaintiffs seek is to stay all the underlying claims. That

20

would further compound delay, not ameliorate delay. Accordingly, both the legal

ORDER DENYING RULE 54(b) CERTIFICATION OF JUDGMENT ~ 3

1

and equitable considerations weigh against piecemeal resolution of the claims

2

involved here.

3

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

4
5
6
7
8

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on Ruling Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)
(ECF No. 71) is DENIED.
The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish
copies to counsel.
DATED February 9, 2018.

9
10

THOMAS O. RICE
Chief United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER DENYING RULE 54(b) CERTIFICATION OF JUDGMENT ~ 4