United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ADJUDICATE
AND/OR CERTIFY THE FINAL JUDGMENT
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff David Betts'
Motion to Adjudicate and/or Certify the Final Judgment. (Doc.
# 109.) For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the
facts giving rise to this case have been set forth at length
elsewhere and will not be restated here except as relevant to
resolving the present motion. See (Doc. # 71).
October 31, 2017, this Court entered an Order Granting
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to
the only claim Plaintiff raised in his Complaint.
(Id.) Plaintiff appealed that decision before the
Court had ruled on any of the three counterclaims Defendant
raised in its Answer. (Doc. # 81.) On January 2, 2018, the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order directing
Plaintiff to file an order from this Court adjudicating
Defendant's counterclaims or certifying its summary
judgment order as final pursuant to Rule 54(b). (Doc. # 92.)
this Court dismissed Defendant's counterclaims without
prejudice and dismissed the case. (Doc. # 104.) Accordingly,
Plaintiff filed a second Notice of Appeal. (Doc. # 99.)
However, on April 11, 2019, the Tenth Circuit issued an order
indicating that because Defendant's counterclaims were
dismissed without prejudice, the judgment of this Court was
not final and appealable. (Doc. # 107 at 2.) The Tenth
Circuit again directed Plaintiff to file an order from this
Court adjudicating Defendant's counterclaims or
certifying its summary judgment order as final pursuant to
Rule 54(b). (Id.)
on April 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Adjudicate
and/or Certify the Final Judgment. (Doc. # 109.) Defendant
filed a Response (Doc. # 110) on May 1, 2019, in which it
indicated that it was unopposed to Plaintiff's Motion
insofar as the Motion seeks certification from this Court
that its summary judgment order is final for purposes of Rule
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that
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.
Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated,
that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and
liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the
action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised
at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all
the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
Circuit authority requires that an order by this Court
pursuant to Rule 54(b) must make the following two express
determinations, along with an explanation supporting each
determination: (1) the order being certified for entry of
judgment is a “final” order, and (2) “there
is no just reason to delay” review of the final order
until this Court has conclusively ruled on the remaining
claims. Atwell v. Gabow, No. 06-cv-02262-CMA-MJW,
2009 WL 112492, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 15, 2009). This Court
now explicitly makes those two findings.
be considered ‘final,' an order 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.'” Atwell, 2009 WL
112492, at *3 (D. Colo. Jan. 15, 2009) (quoting
Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1,
7 (1980)). A “claim” is generally understood to
include “all factually or legally connected elements of
a case.” Okla. Tpk. Auth. v. Bruner, 259 F.3d
1236, 1242 (10th Cir. 2001). Further, a ...