Urban Outfitters, Inc. v. United Construction Co.

Opinion

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00109-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER 8 v. 9 DERMODY OPERATING COMPANY, 10 LLC, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 I. SUMMARY 14 This is a breach of contract action involving the construction of a fulfillment and 15 distribution center. The Court recently granted third-party defendant Atlas Contractors 16 Inc.’s motion for summary judgment on all claims against Atlas. (ECF No. 211 (“MSJ 17 Order”).) Defendant and cross-claimant United Construction Co. now moves for the 18 Court to certify the Order as final pursuant to either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) so that it may be appealed. (ECF No. 219 (“Motion”).)1 For 20 the following reasons, United’s Motion is granted. 21 II. BACKGROUND 22 The Court incorporates by reference the undisputed background facts that it 23 recited in the MSJ Order. (ECF No. 211 at 1-2.) In the MSJ Order, the Court found that 24 all third-party claims and crossclaims against Atlas were barred by NRS § 78.585, the 25 Nevada statute limiting actions by or against dissolved corporations. (Id. at 10.) The 26 Court thus resolved the motion for summary judgment in favor of Atlas. (Id.) 27

28 1No party has filed a response, but the Ninth Circuit did issue an order stating that appellate briefing is stayed. (ECF No. 220.) 2 United asks the Court to enter judgment in line with the MSJ Order or, 3 alternatively, to certify the MSJ Order as an interlocutory order. Because whether 4 judgment is proper under Rule 54(b) is dispositive, the Court does not reach the issue of 5 whether it issued an interlocutory order. 6 “When an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . the court may direct 7 entry of final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the 8 court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b). 9 United requests the Court enter judgment under Rule 54(b) because the Court’s grant of 10 summary judgment to Atlas constitutes a final judgment, and both the equities and 11 judicial administrative interests favor entering judgment now. The Court agrees. 12 A. Final Judgment 13 In determining whether entry of judgment is proper under Rule 54(b), the district 14 court must first determine whether it issued a final judgment. See Curtiss-Wright Corp. 15 v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980). The judgment is final if the district court 16 rendered “an ultimate disposition of an individual claim.” Pakootas v. Teck Cominco 17 Metals, Ltd., 905 F.3d 565, 574 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp., 446 U.S. 18 at 7). And Ninth Circuit takes “a pragmatic approach” toward determining whether the 19 district court has decided an individual claim, which focuses on whether the ostensibly 20 multiple claims are separately justiciable. Id. at 574-75. Under this approach, claims 21 with “partially overlapping facts are not foreclosed from being separate for purposes of 22 Rule 54(b).” Id. at 575 (quotation marks omitted). 23 No party disputes that the Order is final. The Court found in the Order that all 24 claims against Atlas are barred under NRS § 78.585, dismissed the third-party 25 complaint and crossclaim against Atlas, and entered summary judgment in Atlas’ favor. 26 (ECF No. 211.) Because these claims were obviously separately justiciable—as 27 demonstrated by the fact that the Court resolved them separately from other claims in 28 this litigation—there is no question that the Court reached an ultimate disposition of 2 B. No Just Reason for Delay 3 Once the district court has determined that there is a final judgment, the Court 4 must find that there is “no just reason for delay.” Pakootas, 905 F.3d at 574. District 5 courts must use their discretion to determine whether “judicial administrative interests” 6 and “the equities involved” are best served by severing the finally decided claims from 7 those still pending. Id. at 576 (quoting Curtiss-Wright, 466 U.S. at 8). 8 The equities and administrative interests indicate that review is appropriate now, 9 as delaying appeal of this issue could lead to undue prejudice and waste judicial 10 resources. Determining Atlas’ liability will affect other parties’ rights and remedies 11 against Atlas. If the case settles before trial, other defendants may be forced to bear the 12 cost of any harm caused by Atlas, and Urban Outfitters may not be able to recover as 13 much as they would if Atlas were party to this suit. And if the case goes to trial, other 14 defendants could likewise bear the entire cost of a judgment. Moreover, after trial, the 15 Ninth Circuit could reverse the MSJ Order—meaning the parties would have to relitigate 16 the issues in the dismissed claims. 17 It is just and efficient to enter judgment under Rule 54(b) so that the parties may 18 obtain further information as to their respective liabilities for settlement and trial. The 19 Court exercises its discretion under Rule 54(b) to grant the Motion. 20 V. CONCLUSION 21 The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several 22 cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and 23 determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the 24 motion before the Court. 25 It is therefore ordered that United Construction’s motion for certificate of 26 appealability (ECF No. 219) is granted. 27 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter partial judgment for Atlas Contractors Inc. 28 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). 1 DATED THIS 4" Day of March 2024.

3 MIRANDA M. DU 4 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28