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.

Strategic Energy Concepts, LLC v. Otoka Energy, LLC

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

July 30, 2019

STRATEGIC ENERGY CONCEPTS, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
OTOKA ENERGY, LLC, et al., Defendants.

          Arthur G. Boylan, Philip J. Kaplan, Norman H. Pentelovitch, and Peter J. McGilligott, Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie P.A., Counsel for Plaintiff Strategic Energy Concepts, LLC.

          Andrew J. Pieper, Eric A. Bartsch, and Margaret E. Dalton, Stoel Rives LLP, Counsel for Defendants Otoka Energy, LLC; Buena Vista Biomass Development, LLC; Amador Biomass, LLC; and Buena Vista Biomass Power, LLC.

          MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER

          MICHAEL J. DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Enter Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b). [Docket No. 201] The background facts of this case are set forth in detail in the Court's March 28, 2019 Order. [Docket No. 200]

         On March 28, 2019, the Court granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the Amended Complaint. Because the counterclaims of Defendant Otoka Energy, LLC (“Otoka”) against Plaintiff Strategic Energy Concepts LLC (“Strategic Energy”) remained, no judgment was entered. Otoka asserts two counterclaims: Counterclaim Count 1: Breach of Contract; and Counterclaim Count 2: Breach of Fiduciary Duty. [Docket No. 65]

         Plaintiff now requests that the Court enter final judgment on dismissal of the Amended Complaint so that it can immediately appeal the Court's decision. Defendants Otoka; Buena Vista Biomass Development, LLC (“BVBD”); Buena Vista Biomass Power, LLC (“BVBP”); and Amador Biomass, LLC (“Amador”) (collectively, the “Otoka Defendants”) oppose Plaintiff's motion.

When an action presents more than one claim for relief - whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim - 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 parties agree that the Court is dealing with a final judgment: the Court's March 28, 2019 Order disposes of all claims brought by Strategic Energy against Defendants.

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.