District of Columbia v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

District of Columbia v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

664 A.2d 1235, 1995 WL 562286

District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided September 25, 1995·No. No. 93-CV-990·Published

Opinions

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This appeal, certified to us as a final judgment under Super.Ct.Civ.R. 54(b), comes without a statement of reasons by the trial court. In Peoples v. Warfield & Sanford, Inc., 660 A.2d 397, 403 (D.C.1995), we held that “a Rule 54(b) certification must be accompanied by a statement of reasons explaining why the judgment should be deemed final for purposes of appeal.” We further held that without a proper certification, the judgment lacks finality and hence the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. As in Peoples, we “leav[e] it to the trial court’s discretion whether to enter final judgment again under Rule 54(b), accompanied by a statement of reasons adequate for our review.” 660 A.2d at 404.

In the interests of judicial efficiency, we note that it is the present tentative view of this panel that as to all eight appellants, the trial court erred in entering summary judgment on the civil conspiracy claim without permitting further discovery by the District, since Judge Webber’s October 11, 1985, order commencing Phase I limited discovery had never been lifted or modified. See Phillips v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 424 A.2d 78, 81 n. 1 (D.C.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 989, 101 S.Ct. 2327, 68 L.Ed.2d 848 (1981) (trial judge should rule on summary judgment “only when full discovery of material facts is available to the non-moving party”; emphasis added). We note that appel-lees’ counsel virtually conceded this point at oral argument.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This appeal, certified to us as a final judgment under Super.Ct.Civ.R. 54(b), comes without a statement of reasons by the trial court. In Peoples v. Warfield & Sanford, Inc., 660 A.2d 397, 403 (D.C.1995), we held that “a Rule 54(b) certification must be accompanied by a statement of reasons explaining why the judgment should be deemed final for purposes of appeal.” We further held that without a proper certification, the judgment lacks finality and hence the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. As in Peoples, we “leav[e] it to the trial court’s discretion whether to enter final judgment again under Rule 54(b), accompanied by a statement of reasons adequate for our review.” 660 A.2d at 404.

In the interests of judicial efficiency, we note that it is the present tentative view of this panel that as to all eight appellants, the trial court erred in entering summary judgment on the civil conspiracy claim without permitting further discovery by the District, since Judge Webber’s October 11, 1985, order commencing Phase I limited discovery had never been lifted or modified. See Phillips v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 424 A.2d 78, 81 n. 1 (D.C.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 989, 101 S.Ct. 2327, 68 L.Ed.2d 848 (1981) (trial judge should rule on summary judgment “only when full discovery of material facts is available to the non-moving party”; emphasis added). We note that appel-lees’ counsel virtually conceded this point at oral argument.

District of Columbia v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 664 A.2d 1235, 1995 WL 562286 (D.C. 1995).

Pincite

664 A.2d 1235 (District of Columbia v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related