Nellams v. Eagle Marine Services, Inc.. et al

Filing 135

ORDER granting defendant Pacific Maritime Association's 130 131 Motions for entry of final judgment signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour.(RS)

Download PDF
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 ABIN BOLA NELLAMS, 10 Plaintiff, v. 11 12 CASE NO. C13-1504-JCC ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT EAGLE MARINE SERVICES, INC., et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Pacific Maritime Association’s 16 (“PMA”) motions for entry of final judgment (Dkt. Nos. 130, 131). PMA asks this Court to enter 17 final judgment on its order dismissing all claims against PMA (Dkt. No. 106) in response to 18 PMA’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 64). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ 19 briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained 20 herein. 21 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize district courts to direct entry of final 22 judgment where fewer than all the original claims to an action are resolved and “there is no just 23 reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The Court first must determine that it is dealing with a 24 final judgment. Curtiss–Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980) (“It must be a 25 judgment in the sense that it is a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief, and it must be final 26 in the sense that it is an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT C13-1504-JCC PAGE - 1 1 multiple claims action.”). The Court must then determine if there is any just reason for delay. Id. 2 In the underlying matter, Plaintiff brought suit against his coworker, employer, and PMA 3 (a payroll administrator for its member companies). (Dkt. Nos. 1, 42.) Here, there is no question 4 that the dismissal order was a final judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s claims against PMA. 5 (Dkt. No. 26 at 5.) Further, the Court sees no just reason for delay on these facts. PMA’s 6 arguments for dismissal were unique to PMA. Plaintiff brought forth employer-based claims 7 against PMA despite the fact that PMA was not Plaintiff’s employer, but an association of which 8 his employer was a member. (Dkt. Nos. 42 at 1–2, 106 at 4–5.) 9 Plaintiff argues that dismissal of PMA could result in multiple appeals. (Dkt. No. 132 at 10 3.) This judicial economy argument is not persuasive in light of the fact that Plaintiff recently 11 brought a similar claim against PMA and another employer on comparable grounds as the instant 12 case. See Nellams v. Pacific Maritime Association, Case No. C17-0911, Dkt. No. 1 (W.D. Wash 13 2017). Granting PMA’s motion in this case will avoid relitigation of the same issues in the new 14 case. 15 I. 16 17 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, PMA’s motions for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) (Dkt. Nos. 130, 131) are GRANTED. 18 19 DATED this 28th day of September 2017. A 20 21 22 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT C13-1504-JCC PAGE - 2

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?