Detroit International Bridge Company v. Government of Canada, 53 F. Supp. 3d 28

Background

The Ambassador Bridge (privately owned by Detroit International Bridge Company and Canadian Transit Company) carries a large share of US-Canada commercial traffic; plaintiffs seek to build a privately funded adjacent "Twin Span."
A government-sponsored public bridge (NITC/DRIC) was proposed that would compete with and threaten the Twin Span project's economics.
Plaintiffs sued multiple federal and international defendants; Count IV challenged the U.S. Coast Guard’s refusal/delay to amend a navigation permit for the Twin Span as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The district court granted the Coast Guard’s motion to dismiss Count IV and denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration; plaintiffs moved for entry of final judgment on Count IV under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) to enable immediate appeal.
The court concluded Count IV is a final, severable adjudication that raises distinct legal and factual issues from the remaining claims and that equitable and judicial-administrative considerations favor immediate appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should enter final judgment under Rule 54(b) on Count IV to permit immediate appeal	Delay of appeal prejudices plaintiffs' ability to compete to build the Twin Span; Count IV is separable and merits immediate appellate review	Immediate appeal risks piecemeal litigation and duplicate appellate review because remaining claims arise from similar facts	Granted: Court found Count IV final and separable, no just reason for delay; Rule 54(b) certification appropriate
Whether the Coast Guard’s permit decision (Count IV) is factually and legally intertwined with the other claims	The navigation-permit issue is independent and dispositive of plaintiffs’ ability to build; appellate review could moots other claims	Remaining claims involve related facts and could lead to inconsistent holdings if Count IV is appealed now	Court found minimal legal/factual overlap; appellate efficiency not significantly harmed
Whether equities favor immediate appeal	Plaintiffs face prolonged, substantial prejudice (delay, financing risk, loss of competitive position) and no substantial harm to defendants	Federal defendants identified procedural complexity but no concrete prejudice from allowing appeal	Equities favor plaintiffs; plaintiffs demonstrated significant hardship and delay in obtaining permit
Whether entry of Rule 54(b) certification was a proper exercise of discretion	Immediate review could resolve critical, independent issue that may render other litigation unnecessary	Judicial-administrative interests counsel against piecemeal appeals	Court exercised discretion, supplied reasons, and certified final judgment on Count IV

Key Cases Cited

Blackman v. District of Columbia, 456 F.3d 167 (D.C. Cir.) (appellate jurisdiction requires express Rule 54(b) determination)
Taylor v. FDIC, 132 F.3d 753 (D.C. Cir.) (district court should supply statement of reasons for Rule 54(b) rulings)
Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (two-step Rule 54(b) inquiry: finality and whether there is any just reason for delay)
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 (Sup. Ct.) (definition of final judgment in multi-claim actions)
Bldg. Indus. Ass'n of Superior Calif. v. Babbitt, 161 F.3d 740 (D.C. Cir.) (district court best positioned to determine Rule 54(b) timing)
Petties v. District of Columbia, 227 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir.) (district court as dispatcher in Rule 54(b) decisions)
Brooks v. Dist. Hosp. Partners, L.P., 606 F.3d 800 (D.C. Cir.) (equities and justice to litigants relevant to Rule 54(b) analysis)
Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 221 F.R.D. 255 (D.D.C.) (Rule 54(b) balances avoiding piecemeal appeals and timely justice)
Baystate Med. Ctr. v. Leavitt, 587 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D. Mass.) (Rule 54(b) appropriate where claims are factually and legally distinct)