455 F. App'x 3
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- Civil forfeiture action by the United States to recover over $250 million held in global bank accounts.
- Funds are alleged to be traceable to crimes of former Ukrainian Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko, who was convicted in the United States on money laundering charges.
- Gazprom, a Russian state-owned gas utility, filed a claim and later an amended answer asserting an interest in some funds.
- Other claimants also filed claims in the district court; the government moved for judgment on the pleadings against Gazprom for lack of standing.
- District court granted judgment against Gazprom and dismissed Gazprom from the in rem proceeding; Gazprom appealed.
- Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because no final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or Rule 54(b) has been entered as to Gazprom or all parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is a final decision under §1291 or Rule 54(b). | Gazprom argues the district court's ruling is final as to Gazprom. | Government contends no final judgment exists because multiple claims remain and no 54(b) order was entered. | The appeal is not final; no Rule 54(b) order and not all claims are resolved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v. Guest Servs., Inc., 630 F.3d 217 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (finality requires all claims or Rule 54(b) entry for partial judgments)
- Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (U.S. 1988) (final judgment on the merits leaves nothing for the court to do but execute)
- Outlaw v. Airtech Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc., 412 F.3d 156 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (partial judgments do not end the action absent Rule 54(b))
- Smoke v. Norton, 252 F.3d 468 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (denial of intervention is an appealable final order only when it is a final ruling)