United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL & SULLIVAN LLP Attorneys for
Defendant Paul Sims.
STIPULATED PROPOSED FINAL
JUDGMENT DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE ALL CLAIMS BETWEEN
PLAINTIFF SARAH LEE AND DEFENDANT PAUL SIMS
V. Acosta United States Magistrate Judge.
16, 2017, this Court issued its Order granting defendant
Sims' motion to enforce the settlement agreement between
defendant Paul Sims and plaintiff Sarah Lee (ECF No. 112).
Pursuant to that Order, all claims by Lee against Sims and
all counterclaims by Sims against Lee are dismissed with
prejudice, and the settlement agreement between them is
enforced. As of the date of the Order, Lee, on behalf of
herself and her respective heirs, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns shall have fully, finally and forever
waived, released and discharged any and all claims against
Sims relating to the institution and prosecution of this
litigation, and shall forever be enjoined from instituting,
maintaining or prosecuting any or all such claims. As of the
date of the Order, Sims, on behalf of himself and his
respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and
assigns shall have fully, finally and forever waived,
released and discharged any and all claims against Lee
relating to the institution and prosecution of this
litigation, and shall forever be enjoined from instituting,
maintaining or prosecuting any or all such claims.
the Court's Order, the only claims remaining before the
Court are claims between Lee and defendant Trees, Inc.
moved for entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) of the
Fed. R.Civ. P, because there is no just reason for delay and
to ensure that an appeal by Lee of the June 16, 2017, if any,
occurs immediately so that he is not prejudiced by a later
appeal. No party opposes Sims' Motion for Entry of
54(b) requires that the judgment to be entered be final as to
the claims it addresses, and that there be no just reason for
delay. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S.
427, 436 (1956). A final judgment is "an ultimate
disposition" as to an individual claim or party that
occurs in the course of a multiple claims action, Birkes
v. Tillamook County, No. 3:09-CV-1084-AC, 2012 WL
2178964, * 1 (D. Or. June 13, 2012), There is a final
judgment as to all claims against Sims by Lee and all
counterclaims against Lee by Sims because this Court has
determined that Sims and Lee entered into a full and final
agreement to settle all claims between them.
determining whether there is any just reason to delay, the
Court may consider whether the claims under review are
severable from the other claims in the case and whether the
nature of the claims already determined is such that no
appellate court would have to decide the same issues more
than once even if there were subsequent appeals. Nw. Pipe
Co. v. RLI Ins. Co., 3:09-CV-01126-BR, 2014 WL 2040073,
at * 1-3 (D. Or. May 16, 2014), affd, 649
F.App'x. 643 (9thCir. 2016). Having considered
the standard for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b), the
Court finds that it is appropriate to enter judgment under
Rule 54(b) as to Lee's four causes of action against Sims
and as to Sims' five counterclaims against Lee. There is
no just reason to delay entry of final judgment on these
adjudicated claims and counterclaims.
the Court's Order eliminates all claims and counterclaims
between Sims and Lee, The claims remaining in the lawsuit are
all between Lee and Trees, Inc. While the claims against Sims
and Trees have factual overlap, entry of judgment is
appropriate in this case because the factual and legal issues
that form and basis of the June 16, 2017 Order and result in
the Rule 54(b) certification are legally distinct and
severable from any other issue remaining.
there is no danger that any issue addressed on an appeal from
an entry of judgment would arise in a subsequent appeal in
this matter. AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West,
Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 954 (9th Cir. 2006). Any
appeal would relate squarely to the enforceability of the
settlement agreement, and would not touch on the merits of
the underlying dispute.
may also enter judgment under Rule 54(b) if, as here, it
assists in the expeditious resolution of the case,
Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 797
(9th Cir. 1991). If Lee decides to appeal the
Court's Order, justice would be best served by an
immediate appeal. Requiring an appeal to be taken at this
early stage will save judicial resources. Sims has not
completed discovery and, if this decision was overturned
after the Lee/Trees matter was finalized, Sims would be
forced to revisit many of the underlying factual issues and
resume depositions with parties that may have also been
involved in the Lee/Trees case. An entry of final judgment
would ensure that when Lee's case goes to trial, all
relevant parties and issues are included. The underlying case
does not yet have a trial date, discovery is still open, and
the parties are awaiting a decision on summary judgment.
Entering final judgment under Rule 54(b) will aid all parties
in ensuring the most efficient handling of the litigation and
ensure that important judicial resources are not wasted.
it is appropriate for the Court to consider the balance of
equities when considering a final judgment. Amerisource
Bergen Corp,, 465 F.3d at 954-55. This balancing favors
final judgment because of the significant emotional and
financial toll this matter has taken on Sims, an individual.
Allowing appeal at some unknown future date would
unnecessarily prejudice Sims as he would need to stay
involved with the case, attend hearings, and continue
reviewing discovery materials, He also would be unable to
make personal financial decisions related to his retirement
while he waits for the Lee/Trees matter to conclude due to
possible additional legal fees that he would incur following
a later appeal.
Motion for Entry of Judgment is granted.
being no just reason for further delay, pursuant to Rule
54(b), the Clerk is hereby ordered to enter final ...