Maguire v. Eco Science Solutions, Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 6, 2020
• Docket: 2:18-cv-01301
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 WENDY MAGUIRE, 8 NO. C18-1301RSL Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 10 MOTION FOR PARTIAL ECO SCIENCE SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., JUDGMENT 11 Defendants. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Partial Final 14 Judgment” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54. Dkt. # 45.1 On August 22, 2019, the Court 15 granted in part plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding that (1) defendant Eco Science 16 17 Solutions, Inc., (“ESSI”) and/or its wholly-owned subsidiary, Ga-Du Corporation, had breached 18 the salary provisions of plaintiff’s employment agreement and that plaintiff was entitled to 19 compensatory damages, including the promised salary of $240,000 and (2) the corporate 20 defendants - and any officer, vice principal, or agent involved in the decision - willfully withheld 21 payment of plaintiff’s accrued and unpaid salary for purposes of RCW 49.52.070, thereby 22 23 triggering the statute’s double damages and attorney’s fee provisions. In making these findings, 24 the Court declined to decide whether plaintiff had a duty to mitigate in the circumstances 25 26 1 The Court has considered defendants’ response. Their belated motion for a one day extension of time (Dkt. # 51) is GRANTED. 27 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 1 presented here or which officers, vice principals, or agents were involved in the decision to 2 withhold wages. Notwithstanding these open issues, plaintiff moves for entry of partial judgment 3 holding ESSI, Ga-Du-Corporation, Michael Rountree, and L. John Lewis jointly and severally 4 liable for $240,000 in wages owed, $240,000 in exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and 5 prejudgment interest. 6 7 There are, as the above recitation shows, open issues which preclude entry of the 8 judgment plaintiff seeks. The Court declines to resolve the mitigation and individual liability 9 issues in the context of this motion. In addition, plaintiff seeks other forms of damages arising 10 from the breach of her employment agreement, specifically reserving the right to prove 11 consequential damages at trial. Dkt. # 13 at 18 n.4. Entry of partial judgment under Rule 54(b) is 12 not appropriate in these circumstances. The rule provides that “[w]hen an action presents more 13 14 than one claim for relief . . . , the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, 15 but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just 16 reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The Supreme Court has established a framework for 17 applying this rule. The district court must first determine that it has rendered a “final judgment,” 18 meaning a judgment that is “‘an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course 19 20 of a multiple claims action.’” Curtiss–Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980) 21 (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 436 (1956). Whether a judgment is 22 final turns, in part, on whether the claim is ready for appeal, taking into consideration the 23 judicial administrative interests in avoiding piecemeal appeals. Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 24 F.3d 873, 877-79 (9th Cir. 2005). If final judgment has been rendered on a claim, the district 25 court then determines whether there is any just reason for delay. 26 27 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 1 Plaintiff cannot clear the “final judgment” hurdle. Her outstanding demand for other 2 forms of damages arising from the breach of her employment contract must be resolved before 3 the breach of contract claim is finally resolved and ripe for appeal. In addition, plaintiff has 4 identified other individuals whom she believes were involved in the decision to withhold her 5 wages. Entering judgment at this stage for only some damages and against only some defendants 6 7 would almost assuredly result in multiple appeals of the same claim. 8 9 For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for entry of partial judgment (Dkt. 10 # 45) is DENIED. Although defendants appear willing to accept entry of partial judgment 11 against them for the $47,010.50 in fees and costs plaintiff claimed in this motion, those fees will 12 undoubtedly go up as plaintiff litigates the mitigation, consequential damages, and individual 13 14 liability issues. Defendants cannot forestall entry of judgment on the underlying claim while 15 cutting off the fees associated with litigating the claim to completion. 16 Defendants’ request for a one day extension in which to file their response (Dkt. # 51) is 17 GRANTED. 18 19 Dated this 6th day of February, 2020. 20 A Robert S. Lasnik 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S