Stewart v. Gates
277 F.R.D. 33
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Lisa Stewart, a former DIA intelligence officer in Japan, sued the Secretary of Defense (official capacity) under Title VII and individual defendants (in their personal capacities) under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985.
- May 16, 2011: the court dismissed the individual defendants' claims, holding Title VII provides the exclusive remedy and their alleged retaliation is covered by Stewart's Title VII claim against the DIA.
- No remaining claims against the Individual Defendants; Stewart's Title VII claims against the Department of Defense remain pending.
- Individual Defendants moved under Rule 54(b) for final judgment on the dismissed claims, arguing there is no just reason for delay.
- Stewart opposed, warning against piecemeal appeals and noting the remaining case against the government continues.
- The court denied the Rule 54(b) motion, concluding no exceptional circumstances justify immediate appeal of the individual-defendant dismissals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate here | Stewart argues against piecemeal appeals and delays via premature judgment. | Individual Defendants contend there is no just reason for delay and final judgment is appropriate. | No; Rule 54(b) certification denied. |
| Whether there are exceptional circumstances justifying immediate appeal | Piecemeal appeals would cause injustice by duplicative proceedings. | There are no exceptional circumstances warranting early appeal. | No exceptional circumstances found. |
| Impact on ability to revise the May 16, 2011 order if judgment is entered | Timely appeals should wait until entire case resolves to avoid limitation on revisiting the order. | Rule 54(b) allows final judgments and does not guarantee ongoing revision of earlier orders. | Denial preserves potential for revision before final adjudication of all claims. |
| Potential hardship to defendants from ongoing litigation | Uncertainty and burdens of potential liability would negatively impact defendants. | Hardship is speculative and negligible compared to Rule 54(b) aims. | Hardship deemed insufficient to justify immediate final judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackman v. District of Columbia, 456 F.3d 167 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Rule 54(b) requires explicit no-just-cause-for-delay finding)
- Bldg. Indus. Ass'n of Superior Cal. v. Babbitt, 161 F.3d 740 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (express direction and determination is a bright-line requirement)
- Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (1980) (sound judicial administration does not require routine grant of 54(b) relief)
- Powers-Bunce v. District of Columbia, 594 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D.D.C. 2009) (denial when it would prevent revising interlocutory orders)
- Taylor v. FDIC, 132 F.3d 753 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (role of district court as dispatcher in Rule 54(b) decisions)
- Robinson-Reeder v. Am. Council on Educ., 571 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (avoidance of piecemeal appeals)
- Johnson v. Mukasey, 248 F.R.D. 347 (D.D.C. 2008) (Rule 54(b) granted where claims are separable)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737 (1976) (amendment to ensure immediate appeal for partial judgments)
- Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp., 338 U.S. 507 (1950) (policy against delaying adjudication for entire case)