The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Caputo
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Presently before the Court is the Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Against Defendants County of Luzerne and Gregory Skrepenak, brought by Plaintiffs Angela Rimmer Belanger, Joseph Rimmer, Kelly Farmer, and Zane Farmer. Because there is just reason for delay the entry of final judgment, the motion will be denied.
Plaintiffs brought this action against the Defendants on July 7, 2010. Their claims arise out of an alleged conspiracy between private individuals, corporations, state court judges, and county officials to profit from the placement of juveniles in private detention facilities.*fn1 Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 24, 2010, then moved for leave to file a second amended complaint on February 3, 2011. Specifically, Plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint a second time in order to provide additional detail to their allegations against Luzerne County, former Luzerne County Commissioner Greg Skrepenak, and Sandra Brulo, the former Deputy Director of Forensic Programs of the Luzerne County Department of Probation.
On April 27, 2011, I denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint with regard to Luzerne County and Mr. Skrepenak, determining that Plaintiffs had failed to state a plausible claim against them. Nevertheless, on May 10, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that included allegations against the two Defendants. I dismissed the claims against Luzerne County and Mr. Skrepenak on November 30, 2011. On December 16, 2011, the Plaintiffs in Wallace v. Powell, No. 3:09-cv-0286, and several Defendants jointly moved for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement.
On December 30, 2011, Plaintiffs filed this motion seeking an entry of a final judgment under Rule 54(b) as to the dismissal of the claims against Luzerne County and Mr. Skrepenak. The motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition.
Federal courts of appeals only have jurisdiction over appeals from "final decisions" of federal district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. "Ordinarily, an order which terminates fewer than all claims, or claims against fewer than all parties, does not constitute a 'final' order for purposes of appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291." Carter v. City of Phila., 181 F.3d 339, 343 (3d Cir. 1999). Here, Plaintiffs wish to appeal the dismissal of their claims against Defendants Luzerne County and Gregory Skrepenak, but that order was not final for appellate jurisdiction purposes because it did not terminate all claims in the litigation. For this reason, they request that the Court certify those claims as final pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
Rule 54(b) creates an "exception to the finality rule." Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Kali Labs., Inc., Nos. 02-5707, 04-0886, 06-3533, 2007 WL 1814080, at *2 (D.N.J. Jun. 2, 2007). The rule provides that in actions involving multiple parties or more than one claim for relief, "the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
In order for Rule 54(b) to apply, a district court must find that "(1) there has been a final judgment on the merits, i.e. an ultimate disposition on a cognizable claim for relief; and (2) there is 'no just reason for delay.'" Berckeley Inv. Grp., Ltd. v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 202 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Allis-Chambers Corp. v. Phila. Elec. Co., 521 F.2d 360, 363 (3d Cir. 1975), overruled on other grounds by Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 6 (1980)). When determining whether there is a "just reason for delay," a court must balance "considerations of judicial administrative interests (preservation of the federal policy against piecemeal appeals) and equities (justice to the litigants)." Carter, 181 F.3d at 346 (citing Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 8). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has laid out several factors for consideration:
(1) the relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims; (2) the possibility that the need for review might or might not be mooted by future developments in the district court; (3) the possibility that the reviewing court might be obliged to consider the same issue a second time; (4) the presence or absence of a claim or counterclaim which could result in set-off against the judgment to be made final; (5) miscellaneous factors such as delay, economic and solvency considerations, shortening the time of trial, frivolity of competing claims, expense, and the like.
Id. at 203 (citing Allis-Chambers, 521 F.2d at 364). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that a case is appropriate for certification under Rule 54(b). Anthuis v. Colt. Indus. ...