In re: Stone Energy Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 6:2005cv02088 - Document 269 (W.D. La. 2009)
Court Description: RULE 54(B) FINAL JUDGMENT granting 252 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). ORDERED that Plaintiff El Paso Firemen and Policemen's Pension Fund's Request For Certification and Entry of Final Judgment is GRANTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court is to to enter FINAL JUDGMENT as to only the individual claims by Plaintiff El Paso Firemen and Policemen's Pension Fund. Signed by Judge Tucker L Melancon on 4/29/09.(crt. Jordan, P) (crt,Smith, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
~ RE CtIIVED w~fl$s~TUUCT ~A OP ~w~oc~~’ur;’ ~ ~~UNflLfl~LtIES DISIRICI COt RI WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAF’AYETTF..-OPELOUSAS L)IVISLON in Re: ChIT Action 05~e~~3O8S Stone Energy Corporai.ion Securities Litjgatto.n Judge Tucker L~.Melangon Magistrate Judge Methvin RULE 54(B) FINAL JUDGMENT In re: Stone Energy Corporation Securities Litigation Doc. 269 Att. 1 Before the. Court is Plaintiff El Paso Firemen and Policemen’s Pension Fund’s (~sEl aso”) Request For Certiuication. and Entry of Final Judgmeni tinder Federal Rule P of Ci~IiProcedure 54(b) [Re.c. Dec. 2.52], Stone Energy Corporation’s (“Stone”) response ERec Doe. 2.53] and El Pasos reply [Roe. Doe. 25Si~. On February 27, 2009. the Court entered a judgment., granting the fli000n for summary judgment flied by Stone and dismissing El Paso as Lead Plaintiff in this action based. on El Paso’s ~aekot capacity to sue or he sued. £249. As the grant of summary )udgnient related only to El Paso’s rights, and is not a final adjudication ot’the. rights of the remainine putative Class members, El. Paso moves the Court for entry of a final judoment pursuant to Rule 54(b) otthe Federal Rules of Civi.l Procedure, Rule 540) rov~des part: in ~\Vhen more than one claim ibm relief is present in an action~ whether as a claim, countercl~atn~mo.ss~ciairn,or thir&pa.rty claim, or when e multiple parties. are involved, the. court. may direct the. entry ot a. final judgment as to one or more hut fewer than all of the claims or ariaes oniy upon an express determination that there. is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry otjudgment’ herr. it Civ, Proc. 54(h). A district court is to exercise its authority to certify claims for appeal under Rule 54(b) “in the sound interest of judicial adrnftistration,” taking into account such factors as Dockets.Justia.com “whether the claIms under review were severable from others remaining to be adjudicated and whetherthe natureofthe claim to be determinedthat such noappellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were subsequent appeals? Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. General Electric Company, 446 US. I 8 (1980); H & W IndAstries, Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corporation, WA, 860 F Id 172 ~~th Cit1988’). Whether to cerdfyajudgment as final is up to the dIscretion of the trial judge, which is nor subject to second guessing by the court of appeal. H & W Industries, 860 P.2d at 175 Rule 54(b) reflects a balancing of two policies, i.e, avoidIng the danger of hardship or injustice through a delay which could be alleviated by an immediate appeal and avoiding piecemeal appealt Lidredge v. Martin Marietta Corp., 207 R3d 737740 ($th Cir2000). The disputed judgment is determinative as to only the indivIdual claims of EL Paso, but allows claIms by other parties to proceed, including claims of the putatIve Class. Thus, the judgment is determinative of the rights of fewer than all parties as requiredunderRule 54(b). Without certificationfor immedIate appeal. El Paso’s claims remain non-appealable and non-prosecutable until the rest ofthe Class has prosecuted the case to a final judgment. Thus, to allow appellate determination of the question controlling jurisdiction is “patently in the interests of sound judicial administration? Skinner it WT Giant Co1 642 F2d 981, 984 (5th Cir.1981). The facts to be reviewed on appeal are unique to the individual claims by El Paso and are notrelevant to the remaining issues. There is a fully developed factual record See KhociatrFan it Federal Election Com’n. 980 F2d 330 (5th Cir.l992). El Paso’s issues present unique questions oflaw which areripe for determination by the court of 2. appeal Ihe.reiore, the Court finds the judgment of February 27, 2009 should be de.siunatcd as a final judgment so as to allow mimeU~ate. ppeal. It is therefore. a ORL)ERED that Plaintiff El Paso Firemen and Poiic.e.rnen~sPension FunCs Request For Certification and Entry or Final Judgment Under Fedaral Rule 01 (lU! Procedure 54(b) tRee. Doe. 2.52] is GRANTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court is to enter ANAL. JUDGMENT nursuant to Rule 54(b) as to only the mdi vidua~claims by Plaintiff El Paso Fireman and Poiicemetfs Pension Fund. Thus clone and signed this 39~ of April. 3009 at Lafayette. Louisiana day Tucker F. M~dançon United States District Judge. 3.
]]>
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.
