The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DEBORAH A. GAUDET, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 19-10356-WBV-JVM
HOWARD L. NATIONS, APC, ET AL. SECTION: D (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion For Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b), filed
by Plaintiffs.1 The Motion is opposed.2 After careful consideration of the parties’
memoranda and the applicable law, the Motion is DENIED.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In the interest of judicial economy, and further because the factual background
of this case has been extensively detailed in the Court’s previous orders, including in
the Court’s June 6, 2021 Order and Reasons3 which is the basis for Plaintiff’s Motion
for Final Judgment, the Court limits its recitation of the facts to the procedural
background which prompted the Motion before the Court.
On November 9, 2020, Defendants The Nicks Law Firm, LLC and Shantrell
Nicks (“the Nicks Defendants”), filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal as to Fraud
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).4 The Motion was opposed and the Nicks Defendants filed
a response.5 On June 8, 2021, the Court granted the Nicks Defendants’ Motion and
1 R. Doc. 396.
2 R. Doc. 403.
3 R. Doc. 357.
4 R. Doc. 239.
5 R. Doc. 240 and R. Doc. 254, respectively.
dismissed Plaintiffs’ fraud claims against The Nicks Law Firm, LLC and Shantrell
Nicks.6
On December 3, 2020, Defendants Howard L. Nations, Cindy Nations, Howard
L. Nations, APC, Gregory D. Rueb, Rueb & Motta, APLC, and the Rueb Law Firm,
APLC (“Nations and Rueb Defendants”) filed a similar Rule 12(b)(6) Motion for
Partial Dismissal as to Fraud.7 That Motion was opposed.8 On June 16, 2021, the
Court granted the Nations and Rueb Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary
Dismissal as to Fraud as to Defendants Gregory D. Rueb, Rueb & Motta, APLC, the
Rueb Law Firm, APLC and Howard L. Nations, APC, and denied the motion as to
Defendants Howard L. Nations and Cindy Nations.9
Plaintiffs now move for entry of final judgment as to the Court’s Orders
dismissing Plaintiffs’ fraud claims against the Defendants. In support of their Motion,
Plaintiffs claim that all three elements necessary for entry of final judgment
certification are met. First, Plaintiffs argue that the litigation involves multiple
claims for relief against multiple parties. Secondly, Plaintiffs claim that a final
determination has been made with respect to at least one, but fewer than all, claims
or parties. Finally, Plaintiffs assert there is no just reason for delaying an appeal. In
support of their assertion that there is no just reason for delaying an appeal, Plaintiffs
note that the Court recently granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue the Trial.
6 R. Doc. 357.
7 R. Doc. 260.
8 R. Doc. 284
9 R. Doc. 372.
Defendants Howard L. Nations, APC, Howard L. Nations, Cindy Nations,
Gregory D. Rueb, Rueb & Motta, APLC and Rueb Law Firm, APLC oppose the
Motion.10 They argue that Plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirements for the
granting of a Rule 54(b) motion. In addressing the determination of whether the
ruling is a “final judgment,” Defendants assert that “Neither of this Court’s orders
disposed of any of plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety because fraud claims remain
against Howard Nations, Cindy Nations, and the Motta defendants.”11 Defendants
further contend that all of Plaintiffs’ fraud claims “overlap factually with the legal
malpractice and breach of contract claims, which were not dismissed,” thus
precluding final judgment.12 Finally, Defendants argue that “even if plaintiffs could
show finality, they fail to offer anything to show ‘hardship or injustice through delay
which would be alleviated by immediate appeal.’”13 In sum, Defendants contend that
Plaintiffs have failed to overcome the presumption under Rule 54(b) against
fragmented, piecemeal appeals.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, “the Court
may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the
claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for
delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.”14 The Fifth Circuit
10 R. Doc. 403.
11 Id. at 3.
12 Id.
13 Id. (citing PYCA Indus., Inc. v. Harrison Cty. Waste Mgmt., 81 F.3d 1412, 1421 (5th Cir. 1996)).
14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
has recognized that, “One of the primary policies behind requiring a justification for
Rule 54(b) certification is to avoid piecemeal appeals.”15 The Fifth Circuit has also
explained that, “A district court should grant certification only when there exists
some danger of hardship or injustice through delay which would be alleviated by
immediate appeal; it should not be entered routinely as a courtesy to counsel.”16
Thus, Rule 54(b) judgments are not favored and should be awarded only when
necessary to avoid injustice.17
The determination of whether “there is no just reason for delay” is left to the
sound discretion of the district court.18 In making that decision, “the district court
must consider judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved.”19
The Court also has a duty to weigh the inconvenience and costs of piecemeal review
against the danger of injustice from delay.20 Thus, one factor that the Court must
consider is whether the Fifth Circuit would have to decide the same issues more than
once if there were subsequent appeals.21
15 PYCA Indus., Inc. v. Harrison County Waste Water Mgmt. Dist., 81 F.3d 1412, 1421 (5th Cir. 1996)
(citing Ansam Assocs., Inc. v. Cola Petroleum, Ltd., 760 F.2d 442, 445 (2d Cir. 1985)).
16 PYCA Indus., Inc., 81 F.3d at 1421 (citing Ansam Assocs., Inc., 760 F.2d at 445).
17 Altier v. Worley Catastrophe Response, LLC, Civ. A. Nos. 11-241, 11-242, 2012 WL 161824, at *26
(E.D. La. Jan. 18, 2012) (quoting Fitch v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Civ. A. Nos. 08-1639, 09-3466, 2010
WL 4552455, at *1-2 (E.D. La. Oct. 28, 2010) (citing PYCA Indus., Inc., 81 F.3d at 1421)); See
Ordemann v. Livingston, Civ. A. No. 06-4796, 2007 WL 1651979 (E.D. La. June 7, 2007) (citing PYCA
Indus., Inc., 81 F.3d at 1421) (same).
18 See Brown v. Mississippi Valley State University, 311 F.3d 328, 332 (5th Cir. 2002); Ackerman v.
FDIC, 973 F.2d 1221, 1224 (5th Cir. 1992); Fitch, Civ. A. Nos. 08-1639, 09-3466, 2010 WL 4552455, at
*1 (citing Ackerman, supra); Altier, Civ. A. Nos. 11-241, 11-242, 2012 WL 161824 at *26 (citing Brown,
supra).
19 Brown, 311 F.3d at 332 (quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8, 100 S.Ct.
1460, 64 L.Ed.2d 1 (1980)).
20 Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union v. Continental Sprinkler Co., 967 F.2d 145, 148 (5th Cir. 1992)
(quoting Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp., 338 U.S. 507, 511, 70 S.Ct. 322, 324, 94 L.Ed. 299
(1950)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
21 Sailboat Bay Apartments, LLC v. U.S., Civ. A. No. 14-2344, 2015 WL 3772756, at *2 (E.D. La. June
17, 2015) (citing H & W Indus., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., 860 F.2d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 1988)).
III. ANALYSIS
Here, Plaintiffs seek a final judgment as to the Court’s June 8, 2021 and June
16, 2021 Order and Reasons,22 which dismissed their fraud claims against the Nicks
Defendants and Gregory D. Rueb, Rueb & Motta, APLC, the Rueb Law Firm, APLC
and Howard L. Nations, APC. All parties agree that other claims remain pending
against Defendants and that fraud claims remain pending against other Defendants
as well.
The primary issue before the Court is whether Plaintiffs have demonstrated
that there is a just reason for delay. Plaintiffs summarily assert that, because the
Court has granted the parties motion to continue the trial, that action alone shows
that there is no just reason for delay. The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs’ reasoning
ignores Fifth Circuit law. Using their reasoning, anytime a matter is either not set
for a trial, or set for a trial in the distant future, that fact alone demonstrates that
there is no just reason for a delay in an appeal. As pointed out in Defendants’
Opposition, the Fifth Circuit has explained that, “A district court should grant
certification only when there exists some danger of hardship or injustice through
delay which would be alleviated by immediate appeal; it should not be entered
routinely as a courtesy to counsel.”23 Here, Plaintiffs have failed to allege, much less
demonstrate, any potential hardship or injustice that would result from delaying
their appeal of the Court’s Orders and Reasons.24 The Court also notes that the
22 R. Docs. 357 & 372.
23 PYCA Indus., Inc., 81 F.3d at 1421 (citing Ansam Assocs., Inc., 760 F.2d at 445).
24 See In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., Civ. A. No. 16-32202, 2017 WL 3190569 (S.D. Tex. July 26, 2016).
dismissed fraud claims are intertwined with Plaintiffs’ remaining breach of contract
and malpractice claims against the Defendants. Thus, an appeal of the Court’s Orders
and Reasons may require the Fifth Circuit to decide the same issues more than once
if there are subsequent appeals on the remaining claims. The Court finds that the
possibility of piecemeal review in this case is strong and outweighs any potential
danger of denying justice by delay.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion For
Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b)?° is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, July 7, 2021.
(lend 1-38 Vitter
WENDY B. VITTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25 R. Doc. 396.