Brunenkant v. Suburban Hospital, Inc., 8:20-cv-00150

Plaintiff Jon L. Brunenkant alleges negligence related to his medical care at Suburban Hospital on October 10–11, 2015.
The litigation included cross-motions for partial summary judgment on medical negligence and related claims.
On August 26, 2024, the court granted in part Defendants’ motion, dismissed Suburban Hospital Healthcare System, Inc. as a defendant, and limited Plaintiff’s remaining claims mostly to those based on respondeat superior.
Plaintiff moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) for certification of judgment on specific dismissed claims and for a stay pending appeal.
The court’s decision focused on whether the rulings on the negligence and damages claims should be certified as final for immediate appeal.
Defendant opposed certification, arguing that the relevant orders were not final judgments and that certification would risk piecemeal litigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Certification of Judgment on Dismissed Claims Under Rule 54(b)	Claims decided against Plaintiff (simple negligence, economic losses) are final and certifiable.	Orders are not final; claims are intertwined with unresolved issues and not proper for certification.	Denied. Claims are not final for 54(b) purposes.
Stay Pending Appeal	Should be granted to allow appellate review before proceeding.	Not warranted, as certification is improper and could delay resolution.	Denied. No basis for stay found.
Finality of Damages (Lost Profits) Judgment	Court’s rejection of economic loss claims is a final disposition.	Court only found insufficient evidence, but did not fully resolve all damages claims.	Denied. Judgment on damages not final.
No Just Reason for Delay	No just reason to delay entry of judgment on these claims.	Appeals could be mooted by later developments; risk of duplicative appeals; claims are interrelated.	Denied. Delay is justified to avoid piecemeal appeals.

Braswell Shipyards, Inc. v. Beazer E., 2 F.3d 1331 (4th Cir. 1993) (entry of partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) is the exception, not the rule, and certification requires no just reason for delay)
Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (1980) (supreme court two-step analysis for Rule 54(b) certification: finality and just reason for delay)