Lemons v. Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest, LLC et al, No. 3:2021cv00511 - Document 40 (D. Or. 2022)

Court Description: Opinion and Order: For the reasons given above, I GRANT Lemons's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment on Claim Two. Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged that Claim Two of Lemons's second amended complaint [ECF 22] is dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 4/18/2022 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (kms)

Download PDF

Lemons v. Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest, LLC et al Case 3:21-cv-00511-MO Document 40 Doc. 40 Filed 04/18/22 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION TAYLOR LEMONS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:21-cv-00511-MO V. OPINION & ORDER WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, LLC, WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES EASTERN, LLC, and WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES WESTERN, LLC, Defendants. MOSMAN,J., This matter comes before me on Plaintiff Taylor Lemons's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, [ECF 37]. For the reasons given below, I grant the motion. BACKGROUND Lemons brought this case in April 2021 as a class action against several subsidiaries of Walgreens Pharmacy Services Gointly, "Walgreens"). One of his claims, Claim Two, was that Walgreens failed to pay its employees timely wages following the merger between Walgreen Eastern, Walgreen Western, and Walgreen Midwest. Second Am. Compl. [ECF 22] ,r,r 71-79. Lemons contended that this merger effectively terminated all Walgreen Eastern and Walgreen Western employees and thus entitled them to payment of wages under Or. Rev. Stat.§ 652.140. I dismissed this claim at oral argument on Walgreens's first motion to dismiss. Mins. of 1 - OPINION & ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:21-cv-00511-MO Document 40 Filed 04/18/22 Page 2 of 3 Proceeding [ECF 20]. In my opinion and order on Walgreens's second motion to dismiss, I clarified that the dismissal was made with prejudice. Op. & Order [ECF 33] at 4. Two ofLemons's claims remain active. In Claim One, Lemons seeks relief under Or. Rev. Stat. § 648.007 for incurring costs because Walgreens operated under an unregistered assumed business name. Second Am. Compl. [ECF 22] ,r,r 67-70. Claim Three is a class claim, alleging that Walgreens has a practice of failing to timely pay its employees after terminating them. Id. ,r,r 80-88. DISCUSSION Lemons moves for the entry of final judgment on Claim Two in order to appeal my decision on that claim. Under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 54(b), A court may enter partial judgment on a final decision if it "expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay." Partial judgment should be granted prudently to "'prevent piecemeal appeals in cases which should be reviewed only as single units."' Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 797-98 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting McIntyre v. United States, 789 F.2d 1408, 1410 (9th Cir. 1986)). Walgreens argues that entry of partial judgment is appropriate only if it is "'necessary to avoid a harsh and unjust result."' Resp. to Mot. for Final J. [ECF 39] at 4 (quoting Morrison- Knudsen Co. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981)). But that is only the case if there is "[a] similarity oflegal or factual issues." Morrison-Knudsen Co., 655 F.2d at 965. Walgreens contends that Claim Two and Claim Three are factually similar. Resp. to Mot. for Final J. [ECF 39] at 3-4. I disagree. Claims Two and Three pose discrete questions. Claim Two asks a legal question: whether employees are terminated when their employer merges with another entity. Claim Three asks a factual question: whether Walgreens meets its obligations under Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.140 to provide terminated employees with their final paycheck in a 2 - OPINION & ORDER Case 3:21-cv-00511-MO Document 40 Filed 04/18/22 Page 3 of 3 timely manner. Claim Two does not involve any disputed facts or issues that will be fleshed out in greater detail or mooted during the litigation of Claim Three. Because Claims Two and Three are factually and legally distinct, Walgreens will not be prejudiced by litigating them at both the trial and appellate levels. Walgreens alleges no other prejudice would result from entry of partial judgment. Accordingly, Lemons has met his burden under Rule 54(b). CONCLUSION For the reasons given above, I GRANT Lemons's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment on Claim Two. Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged that Claim Two ofLemons's second amended complaint [ECF 22] is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this {~ day of April, 2022. 3 - OPINION & ORDER

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.