Pinnacle Processing Group, Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, No. 2:2010cv01126 - Document 50 (W.D. Wash. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER denying pltf's 47 Motion for entry of final judgment and the proposed stipulation and order 49 will not be entered by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pinnacle Processing Group, Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company Doc. 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 PINNACLE PROCESSING GROUP, INC., 11 CASE NO. C10-1126-RSM ORDER ON MOTION FOR RULE 54(B) CERTIFICATION Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurer, Defendant. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 17 This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for entry of final 18 judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). See Dkt. No. 47. For the reasons set forth below, 19 Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. II. DISCUSSION 20 21 A. Background 22 On November 4, 2011, the Court considered the parties’ cross motions for partial 23 summary judgment and determined that the insurance contract at issue did not cover Plaintiff’s 24 losses. See Dkt. No. 46. Summary judgment was entered on Plaintiff’s claims for breach of ORDER ON MOTION FOR RULE 54(B) CERTIFICATION - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 contract and for declaratory relief. Plaintiff’s claims for bad faith, for violations of the 2 Washington Consumer Protection Act (RCW 19.86, et. seq.) (“WCPA”), and for violations of 3 the Insurance Fair Conduct Act (RCW 48.30 et. seq.) (“IFCA”) remain unresolved. Plaintiff 4 contends that “further litigation with respect to these extra-contractual claims in this case would 5 be fruitless and a waste of the resources of the Court and the parties.” Dkt. No. 47, p. 2. As a 6 result, Plaintiff seeks Rule 54(b) certification on its claims for breach of contract and for 7 declaratory relief so that it may immediately appeal those claims. Defendant does not oppose the 8 motion and has entered a stipulation and proposed order with the Court providing that: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1. Plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract, bad faith, exemplary damages, violation of the Insurance Fair Conduct Act, violation of the Consumer Protection Act and for attorneys fees and costs do not lie against Hartford Casualty in the absence of coverage. 2. This Court’s Order on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment (Dkt. #46), which ruled that the Hartford Casualty insurance policy affords no coverage for Plaintiff’s claimed loss, renders the Plaintiff’s claims described in ¶1 unsustainable at this time. 3. In the event Plaintiff appeals this Court’s Order on the cross-motions for summary judgment and this Court’s Order is affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, the Plaintiff’s claims described in ¶1 are concomitantly dismissed with prejudice. 4. In the event that the Ninth Circuit reverses this Court’s Order on the Parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, Plaintiff may litigate the claims described in ¶1 before this Court on remand. 5. The Parties agree that there is no reason to litigate Plaintiff’s claims described in ¶1 prior to Plaintiff exercising its right to appeal; and, therefore, the Parties stipulate to certification under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b) that the Court’s ruling on the cross-motions for summary judgment (Dkt.# 46) is a final judgment. 18 Dkt. No. 49. 19 B. Analysis 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides an exception to the general rule that a 21 final judgment is proper and an appeal may be taken only after the court has adjudicated all the 22 parties’ claims for relief. Rule 54(b) allows the court to enter final judgment as to one or more 23 claims “only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” FED. R. 24 ORDER ON MOTION FOR RULE 54(B) CERTIFICATION - 2 1 CIV. P. 54(b).1 “Judgments under Rule 54(b) must be reserved for the unusual case in which the 2 costs and risks of multiplying the number of proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate 3 docket are outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for an early and separate judgment as to 4 some claims or parties.” Frank Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., 776 F.2d 1414, 5 1416 (9th Cir.1985) (quoting Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th 6 Cir.1981)). 7 There are two factors to consider in ordering Rule 54(b) certification. Curtis-Wright 8 Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 10, 100 S.Ct. 1460, 64 L.Ed.2d 1 (1980); 9 AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 954 (9th Cir.2006). First, the 10 court must consider the overlap of factual and legal issues between those claims disposed of 11 under Rule 54(b) and those still pending before the trial court. Id. Second, the court must assess 12 the equities that weigh in favor and against certification. Id. A Rule 54(b) certification is 13 appropriate if it will aid “expeditious decision” of the case. However, the court must also 14 consider the policy of preventing piecemeal appeals in cases that should be reviewed on appeal 15 as a single unit. Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 797-98 (9th Cir.1991). The Ninth 16 Circuit prohibits the trial court from directing entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) “unless it has 17 18 1 19 20 21 22 23 Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: 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. 24 ORDER ON MOTION FOR RULE 54(B) CERTIFICATION - 3 1 made specific findings setting forth the reasons for its order.” Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. 2 Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir.1981). 3 Here, neither party has provided the Court with argument about why this case is 4 appropriate for Rule 54(b) certification. Plaintiff claims in summary fashion that litigation of the 5 remaining issues would be “fruitless and a waste of resources,” (Dkt. No. 47, p. 2) whereas the 6 stipulation provides that the claims “do not lie … in the absence of coverage” (Dkt. No. 49). 7 Neither party explains why this is the type of unusual case that merits entry of judgment as to 8 less than all of the claims. In general, a motion requesting a court order must “state with 9 particularity the grounds for seeking the order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). The parties have failed to 10 comply with this requirement, significantly curtailing the Court’s ability to provide relief. 11 Moreover, without the aid of argument, the Court is particularly concerned about the 12 threat of piecemeal litigation should it enter the parties’ proposed order for Rule 54(b) 13 certification. Presumably, if this Court’s ordered were reversed on appeal and Plaintiff were to 14 subsequently prevail on the non-coverage issues, the Defendants could seek to appeal the ruling 15 on those non-coverage issues. The appeals court, then, would be required to visit this matter 16 twice. This appears to be precisely the concern regarding entry of judgment as to less than all of 17 the claims. Texaco, Inc. 939 F.2d at 797-98. 18 The Court acknowledges that litigating the remaining, highly fact-intensive issues may be 19 costly. The Court also recognizes that the cost of such litigation may be particularly unpalatable 20 – to both the parties and the Court – in light of the Court’s prior ruling on summary judgment. 21 Additionally, since both parties seek the relief requested, it would seem that neither party would 22 be prejudiced by this Court simply entering the parties’ proposed order. However, the standard 23 for certification under Rule 54(b) is clear, and the parties have not persuaded the Court that they 24 ORDER ON MOTION FOR RULE 54(B) CERTIFICATION - 4 1 present the exception to the rule the final judgment not be entered as to less than all the claims in 2 a single action. Finally, the proposed order would not satisfy the Ninth Circuit’s requirement 3 that the district make “specific findings setting forth the reasons for it order.” Morrison-Knudsen 4 Co., Inc. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the motion (Dkt. No. 47) is 5 hereby DENIED and the stipulation and proposed order (Dkt. No. 49) will not be entered. 6 Dated this 2nd day of December 2011. 7 8 9 10 A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER ON MOTION FOR RULE 54(B) CERTIFICATION - 5
]]>
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.
