United States District Court, D. Minnesota
APRIL 19, 2013
ORDER AMENDING ORDER
Michael J. Davis United States District Court
cause is before the Court upon the Stipulation filed by
Plaintiff Marc Mancini and all Defendants [Docket No. 99], by
which the parties agree that the Court may amend its prior
summary judgment order of April 19, 2013 [Docket No. 89] in
favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff Marc Mancini to
allow Mancini to immediately appeal that ruling to the Eighth
Circuit, as provided by Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of
When an action presents more than one claim for relief . . .
or when multiple parties are involved, 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).
Before certifying that there is no just reason for delay
under Rule 54(b), the district court must consider both the
equities of the situation and judicial administrative
interests, particularly the interest in preventing piecemeal
Clos v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 597 F.3d 925, 928 (8th
Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
district court must undertake a two-step analysis when
deciding whether to certify an order under Rule 54(b).”
Downing v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 810 F.3d 580, 585
(8th Cir. 2016). First, the Court “must first determine
that it is dealing with a final judgment . . . in the sense
that it is an ultimate disposition of an individual
claim.” Id. (citation omitted). In this case,
the Court is clearly dealing with a final judgment: the
Court's April 19, 2013 Order disposes of all claims
brought by Plaintiff Marc Mancini against Defendants.
Mancini's claims are not intertwined with the only
remaining claims in the lawsuit, those of Plaintiff Judy
Second, the district court must determine whether a just
reason for delay exists. In making such determination, the
district court must consider both the equities of the
situation and judicial administrative interests, particularly
the interest in preventing piecemeal appeals.
It is a long-standing rule of the Eighth Circuit that
[c]ertification should be granted only if there exists some
danger of hardship or injustice through delay which would be
alleviated by immediate appeal.
Id. (citations omitted). The appellate court has
identified several factors that should be considered in
determining whether danger or hardship through delay exists:
(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 setoff against the judgment sought to
be made final; (5) miscellaneous factors such as delay,