United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 54(B)
WILLIAM J. MARTÍNEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff
Pamela Fine seeks a entry of a final judgment against
Defendants Mike MacIntyre, Rick George, Philip DiStefano, and
Bruce Benson (jointly, “University Defendants”)
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Plaintiff
brought negligence claims and a corresponding conspiracy
against the University Defendants arising out of the manner
in which they responded to Plaintiff's allegations of
abuse by Defendant Joseph Tumpkin (“Tumpkin”)
during his tenure as an Assistant Coach of the University of
Colorado men's football team. The Court dismissed
Plaintiff's negligence and conspiracy claims against the
University Defendants because Plaintiff had not and could not
establish that the University Defendants owed her a duty of
care (“Dismissal Order”). (ECF No. 59 at 16, 18.)
Plaintiff's remaining claims against Tumpkin are stayed
pending resolution of a state court criminal proceeding. (ECF
No. 52 at 10; ECF No. 59 at 19.)
Plaintiff
appealed the Dismissal Order to the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals. (ECF No. 61.) The Tenth Circuit reviewed this
Court's docket and suspended merits briefing pending
resolution of a jurisdictional defect: the Court's
Dismissal Order did not resolve all claims by and against all
parties. (ECF No. 64 at 2.) Plaintiff then filed the present
motion asking the Court to direct entry of a final judgment
as to the University Defendants under Rule 54(b)(the
“Motion”). (ECF No. 65.) Plaintiff has informed
the Court that the University Defendants do not object to the
relief requested, and neither the University Defendants nor
Tumpkin filed a response to the motion. For the reasons
discussed below, the Motion is granted.
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule
54(b) states that “when multiple parties are involved,
the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or
more, but fewer than all, . . . parties only if the court
expressly determines that there is no just reason for
delay.” Rule 54(b) was adopted to codify the
“historic rule in the federal courts [which] has always
prohibited piecemeal disposition of litigation” and
“to avoid the possible injustice of a delay in judgment
of a distinctly separate claim to await adjudication of the
entire case.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) advisory
committee's note.
“Rule
54(b) entries are not to be made routinely . . . . [T]rial
courts should be reluctant to enter Rule 54(b) orders since
the purpose of this rule is a limited one: to provide a
recourse for litigants when dismissal of less than all their
claims will create undue hardships.” Okla. Tpk.
Auth. v. Bruner, 259 F.3d 1236, 1242 (10th Cir. 2001)
(citations omitted). “Rule 54(b) may be invoked only in
a relatively select group of cases and applied to an even
more limited category of decisions.” Waltman v.
Georgia-Pac., LLC, 590 Fed.Appx. 799, 808 (10th Cir.
2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
To
grant a motion under Rule 54(b), a court must make two
“express determinations”: (1) that the relevant
order is a final order, and (2) that there is no just reason
to delay entry of judgment until a conclusive ruling has been
made on all claims and all parties to the case. Okla.
Tpk. Auth., 259 F.3d at 1242. A court must also confirm
that the lawsuit involves multiple claims. Waltman,
590 Fed.Appx. at 809 n.9.[1] A district court's determination of
finality is subject to de novo review, whereas the
“no just reason for delay” decision is reviewed
for abuse of discretion. Okla. Tpk. Auth., 259 F.3d
at 1242.
II.
ANALYSIS
The
Motion is effectively confessed. Neither the University
Defendants nor Tumpkin responded to Plaintiff's motion
for Rule 54(b) certification. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR
7.1(a), Plaintiff conferred with the University Defendants
who indicated that they do not object to the relief
requested. (ECF No. 66.) On this basis alone the Court would
have grounds to grant the Motion.
However,
given that Rule 54(b) certifications are a disfavored remedy,
the Court is compelled to perform a full analysis including
determining that there are multiple claims and the decision
is final, certifying that there is no reason for just delay,
and directing an entry of judgment. See Alpine Bank v.
Hubbell, 2007 WL 3216573 at *2 (D. Colo. Oct. 25, 2007)
(analyzing a plaintiff's unopposed motion for a Rule
54(b) certification).
A.
Multiple Claims
Plaintiff
brought multiple claims, which arose out of a shared set of
facts, against multiple defendants. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶
115-174.) Plaintiff brought negligence and conspiracy claims
against the University Defendants. (Id. ¶¶
132-174.) Plaintiff also brought assault, battery, false
imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress claims against Tumpkin. (Id. ¶¶
115-131.) The requirement of multiple claims against multiple
defendants is thus satisfied.
B.
Final Judgment
In the
context of a Rule 54(b) certification, the
“judgement” must be final “in the sense
that it is an ultimate disposition of an individual claim
entered in the course of a multiple claims action.”
Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., ...