International Fidelity Insurance Company v. La Porte Construction, 2:16-cv-00032

IFIC sought to enforce an Indemnity Agreement and related Resolutions executed purportedly by Benjamin Logue on behalf of over sixty entities in connection with La Porte Construction bonds and demands.
The entities at issue (the "Dismissed Defendants") were single-purpose LLCs whose public formation documents showed limited, specific purposes and did not identify Logue as managing member.
IFIC alleged indemnity, specific performance, and quia timet relief against each indemnitor; it relied on Logue’s unilateral execution of the Indemnity Agreement/Resolutions on their behalf.
The Dismissed Defendants moved to dismiss (converted to summary judgment); the court ruled Logue lacked authority to bind those entities and granted judgment for the Dismissed Defendants.
IFIC moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) to enter final judgment on the dismissed claims to permit immediate appeal; the Dismissed Defendants did not oppose certification but sought protective reservations.
The court granted Rule 54(b) certification, entering final judgment for the Dismissed Defendants, and incorporated the requested protections preserving their rights if IFIC prevailed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should enter final judgment under Rule 54(b) for dismissed defendants	Certification will permit immediate appeal of dismissal while allowing remaining claims to proceed; efficient and non-prejudicial	Opposed only insofar as protective reservations are needed to preserve defenses and rights on remand	Granted: Court found Rule 54(b) requirements met and entered final judgment, subject to defendants' protections
Whether dismissed claims are "final" and separable from remaining claims for Rule 54(b) purposes	Dismissed claims arise from same agreement but are discrete because authority to sign was individual to each entity	Dismissal resolved distinct agency/authorization questions unique to each entity; relief sought varies by indemnitor	Held: Dismissed claims are distinct and separable; order constituted final disposition as to those defendants
Whether there is "no just reason for delay" to certify under Rule 54(b)	Immediate appeal can be resolved before trial on remaining claims and avoid piecemeal proceedings	Defendants requested court preserve their rights and prevent preclusion by doctrines like res judicata or law of the case	Held: No just reason to delay; certification appropriate and court incorporated defendants’ requested safeguards

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (1980) (Rule 54(b) finality requires an "ultimate disposition of an individual claim")
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 (1956) (defining finality for Rule 54(b))
Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Eng’g & Foundry Co., 351 U.S. 445 (1956) (same-transaction claims may be certified if no abuse of discretion)
Gas-A-Car, Inc. v. American Petrofina, Inc., 484 F.2d 1102 (10th Cir. 1973) (Rule 54(b) permits avoiding piecemeal litigation where claims are separable)
Okla. Turnpike Auth. v. Bruner, 259 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2001) (claims must be distinct and separable to be final under Rule 54(b))
U.S. Golf Ass’n v. St. Andrews Sys., Data-Max, Inc., 749 F.2d 1028 (10th Cir. 1984) (Rule 54(b) certification can clarify issues for trial and prevent retrial due to appellate error)