Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Mirapex Products Liability Litigation

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

April 20, 2017

IN RE MIRAPEX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
v.
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants. This document relates to CAROL ADAMS, et al., Plaintiff Marc Mancini Plaintiffs, No. 10-cv-5009 (MJD/FLN)

          DATED APRIL 19, 2013

          ORDER AMENDING ORDER

          Michael J. Davis United States District Court

         This 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 Civil Procedure.

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 appeals.

Clos v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 597 F.3d 925, 928 (8th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

         “[T]he 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 Armstrong.

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, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.