City of Mandan v. Strata Corp.
819 N.W.2d 557
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Strata was general contractor and United Crane was subcontractor on a Mandan street-reconstruction project.
- Heavy rains caused a sewer backup, damaging Mandan homes; losses paid under a funding agreement by Mandan, Interstate Engineering, Strata, and United Crane.
- Mandan and Interstate Engineering sued Strata and Liberty Mutual to recover paid losses; Strata and Liberty Mutual asserted a third-party claim against United Crane for deductible payments.
- Mandan and Interstate settled with Strata and Liberty Mutual; United Crane moved for summary judgment against Liberty Mutual.
- District court ruled United Crane was an insured under Strata’s Liberty Mutual policy; Liberty Mutual was not entitled to subrogation from an insured; the deductible amount ($5,000) remained pending; district court certified the partial summary judgment as final under Rule 54(b).
- This appeal challenges the Rule 54(b) certification and whether the case should proceed for appellate review or be mooted by trial proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 54(b) certification was proper. | 54(b) should favor immediate appeal due to a unique, controlling issue. | Future district court proceedings may moot the issue, making 54(b) inappropriate. | Certification improvidently granted; appeal dismissed. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting 54(b) certification. | District court’s rationale shows unusual circumstances to avoid piecemeal review. | Rationale sparse; potential mootness undermines usefulness of review. | No adequate justification; abuse of discretion shown. |
| Whether the court should exercise supervisory jurisdiction to decide the issues. | Court should decide the subrogation issue given public/private interests and potential injustice. | Case may be moot; supervisory jurisdiction not warranted. | Declined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction. |
| Impact of potential mootness on appealability and finality of judgment. | Finality should attach to the subrogation ruling despite remaining deductible claim. | Mootness in subsequent trial proceedings undermines final appellate review. | Mootness concerns foreclose timely appellate resolution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brummund v. Brummund, 2008 ND 224 (ND) (Rule 54(b) certification should be sparing; not for routine appeals)
- Citizens State Bank-Midwest v. Symington, 2010 ND 56 (ND) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 54(b) review)
- Choice Fin. Group v. Schellpfeffer, 2005 ND 90 (ND) (no just reason for delay required for 54(b) certification)
- Dorothy J. Pierce Family Mineral Trust v. Jorgenson, 2012 ND 100 (ND) (need to avoid advisory opinions; mootness may bar review)
- Hansen v. Scott, 2002 ND 101 (ND) (sound judicial administration; avoid piecemeal appeals)
- Mitchell v. Sanborn, 536 N.W.2d 678 (ND) (supervisory jurisdiction exercised rarely)
- Dimond v. State ex rel. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 1999 ND 228 (ND) (supervisory jurisdiction discretionary; not a right)
- Nodak Mut. Farm Bureau v. Kosmatka, 2000 ND 210 (ND) (mootness consideration in Rule 54(b) context)