CUPERSMITH v. PIAKER & LYONS, P.C.
3:14-cv-01303
N.D.N.Y.Oct 10, 2017Background
- Sixty-six individuals and two estates sued Piaker & Lyons P.C. and two partners alleging the firm aided and abetted a Ponzi scheme; multiple claims were brought but most were dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds in the Court's September 27, 2016 Order.
- The Court dismissed all but three plaintiffs (Peter Zakroff, Teresa Zakroff, Ilene Nemeth) and barred claims for investments made before September 11, 2008; later, the Zakroffs voluntarily dismissed leaving only Nemeth with an active $10,000 claim.
- Plaintiffs moved for Rule 54(b) certification (or interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b)); the Court previously certified for interlocutory appeal but the Second Circuit denied leave under §1292(b).
- Defendants did not oppose Plaintiffs’ request for entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) and indicated appellate clarification might promote settlement.
- The District Court found the statute-of-limitations determinations to be a discrete, separable legal issue suitable for immediate appeal and that entering a Rule 54(b) final judgment would promote judicial economy and the parties’ equitable interests.
- The Court granted Plaintiffs’ Rule 54(b) motion, directed entry of final judgment as to the dismissed claims, and stayed Nemeth’s remaining claim pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should enter final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) on claims dismissed by statute of limitations | Rule 54(b) certification will allow immediate appellate review of the limitations rulings and hasten overall resolution | Defendants do not oppose certification and agree appellate clarity may facilitate settlement | Granted: Court found no just reason to delay; final judgment entered for dismissed claims |
| Whether the statute-of-limitations issue is separable from the remaining merits | The limitations question is discrete (inquiry notice issue) and review will not require repeated appellate determinations | Defendants agreed the limitations issue could be decided on appeal and could aid settlement | Held separable: issue limited to inquiry notice and application of limitations, suitable for immediate appeal |
| Whether immediate appeal would offend policy against piecemeal appeals | Plaintiffs argued benefits of efficiency and single appellate determination outweigh piecemeal concerns | Defendants did not oppose and noted appellate decision could avoid trial | Court balanced factors and concluded policy against piecemeal appeals was outweighed by judicial economy here |
| Effect on remaining plaintiff's claim (Nemeth) | Plaintiffs sought certification while Nemeth’s minor remaining claim proceeds or is stayed pending appeal | Defendants consented to certification and potential stay | Court stayed Nemeth’s claim pending appeal and entered final judgment on dismissed claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1980) (discusses policy against piecemeal appeals and standards for Rule 54(b))
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1956) (addresses finality and piecemeal appeal concerns)
- Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, 642 F.3d 304 (2d Cir. 2011) (Rule 54(b) should consider administrative efficiency and whether issues are separable)
- Harriscom Svenska AB v. Harris Corp., 947 F.2d 627 (2d Cir. 1991) (Rule 54(b) should be exercised sparingly)
- Roebuck v. Guttman, 678 F. Supp. 68 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (certification appropriate where appeal involves a discrete legal issue separable from merits)