Stewart v. Panetta
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137813
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Stewart is a former DIA civilian intelligence officer in Japan; claims include Title VII against the DIA and individual capacity claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 are dismissed.
- May 16, 2011: Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the Title VII claims; only Title VII claims against the DIA remain.
- June 21, 2011: Individual Defendants move for entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b).
- October 27, 2011: Court denied the Rule 54(b) motion for final judgment on the dismissed claims.
- Defendants seek reconsideration arguing intervening authority (Powers-Bunce) undermines the prior ruling; Court analyzes Rule 54(b) standards.
- Court declines reconsideration, finding no just reason for delay and preferring a unified appeal after case resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 54(b) final judgment is appropriate here | Stewart opposes piecemeal appeal; favors unified review after disposition of all claims. | Defendants contend no just reason for delay; equities support final judgment on the dismissed claims. | Denied; no just cause for delay, and unified appeal preferred. |
| Whether an intervening change in law requires reconsideration | Stewart argues no change requiring altering the prior ruling. | Defendants rely on Powers-Bunce as an intervening consideration warranting reconsideration. | No basis to reverse; Powers-Bunce change does not compel reconsideration. |
| Whether Harlow and Butz governs Rule 54(b) balancing of equities | Stewart emphasizes public policy against delaying final resolution for dismissed claims. | Defendants urge applying policy considerations from Harlow/Butz to justify 54(b) relief. | Harlow/Butz cited but not controlling; court maintains Rule 54(b) balancing favors denial. |
| Whether entry of final judgment would disrupt normal appellate practice | Stewart's position is to avoid piecemeal appeals. | Defendants claim separability of issues supports final judgment on those counts. | Not warranted; traditional presumption against piecemeal appeals preserved. |
| Whether judicial efficiency favors a unified appeal after case concludes | Stewart argues consolidated review is more efficient. | Defendants argue early final judgment would relieve burden on dismissed defendants. | Court favors unified appeal and denies 54(b) certification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Powers-Bunce v. District of Columbia, 594 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D.D.C. 2009) (intermediate reconsideration authority not dispositive for Rule 54(b) relief)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (need for quick termination of insubstantial suits discussed in public policy context)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1978) (public policy considerations in terminating insubstantial litigation)
- Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1980) (Rule 54(b) is not routinely granted; need for deliberate balancing)
- Grosdidier v. Chairman, Broad. Bd. of Governors, 774 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 2011) (presumption against piecemeal appeals; discretion in 54(b) ruling)
- Ben-Rafael v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 718 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2010) (factors balancing 54(b) considerations in the district court)
- Estate of Botvin ex rel. Ellis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 772 F. Supp. 2d 218 (D.D.C. 2011) (clarifies grounds for reconsideration standard)