TSYS Acquiring Solutions, LLC v. Electronic Payment Systems, LLC, No. 2:2010cv01060 - Document 67 (D. Ariz. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER granting TSYS' 59 Motion for Entry of Final Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/29/10.(REW)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
TSYS Acquiring Solutions, LLC v. Electronic Payment Systems, LLC 1 Doc. 67 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 TSYS Acquiring Solutions, LLC, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 Electronic Payment Systems, LLC, 14 Defendant. 15 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-10-01060-PHX-DGC ORDER 17 18 On November 9, 2010, the Court issued an order granting summary judgment in favor 19 of Defendant Electronic Payment Systems, LLC (“EPS”). Doc. 58. Plaintiff TSYS 20 Acquiring Solutions, LLC (“TSYS”) has filed a motion for the entry of a final judgment 21 pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 59. EPS does not 22 oppose the motion. Doc. 65. 23 When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, or when multiple 24 parties are involved, the district court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or 25 more but fewer than all of the claims or parties “if the court expressly determines that there 26 is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). “‘Judgments under Rule 54(b) must be 27 reserved for the unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying the number of 28 proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket are outbalanced by the pressing needs Dockets.Justia.com 1 of the litigants for an early and separate judgment as to some claims or parties.’” Frank 2 Briscoe Co. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 776 F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th Cir. 1985); see Gausvik v. 3 Perez, 392 F.3d 1006, 1009 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004). 4 This is such a case. The issues addressed by TSYS’s claim are factually and legally 5 distinct from the issues raised by EPS’s counterclaims. The parties have a genuine and 6 pressing need to settle the issues raised in the TSYS claim. See Doc. 58. The Court 7 concludes that there is no just reason for delaying the appeal of the TSYS claim, and that 8 there is good reason to resolve that claim expeditiously. 9 10 11 IT IS ORDERED that TSYS’s motion for entry of final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) (Doc. 59) is granted. DATED this 29th day of November, 2010. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
