United States v. All Assets Held in Account Number XXXXXXXX
314 F.R.D. 12
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- The United States seeks forfeiture of assets alleged to be proceeds of corruption tied to Nigeria’s Abacha regime; litigation continues as to some assets and claimants but ended as to others.
- The Court previously struck the claims filed by Godson Nnaka and two purported claims on behalf of the Republic of Nigeria for failing to show authority to represent Nigeria, and entered a default judgment vesting certain defendant assets in the United States.
- The government moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) to certify the July 3, 2014 order (striking claims) and the August 6, 2014 order (default judgment as to assets in paragraphs 4(a)–4(g)) as final judgments to permit immediate appeal.
- Claimants opposing certification argued the motion would force a premature or duplicative appeal and could create irreconcilable outcomes (relying on Frow v. De la Vega) if they later prevail on related claims.
- The Court found both orders final for Rule 54(b) purposes, concluded there was no just reason for delay (considering efficiency, potential duplication, and that issues are separable), and granted certification of both orders as final judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the July 3 order striking Nnaka’s and Nigeria’s claims is a final judgment eligible for Rule 54(b) certification | Gov’t: Order leaves those parties without basis to participate and is final, so it should be certified | N/A (no opposition from struck parties) | Court: Yes—order is final and certification is appropriate |
| Whether the August 6 default judgment as to specified assets is final and should be certified under Rule 54(b) | Gov’t: Default judgment is final; certifying now avoids delay and is efficient given the connection to the stricken claims | Claimants: Certification would prompt premature/duplicative appeals and risk inconsistent outcomes | Court: Yes—default judgment is final; no just reason to delay; certify both orders |
| Whether certifying the default judgment would improperly force a premature appeal (Stewart concern) | Gov’t: Nnaka has finished district-court litigation and is positioned to appeal; certification won’t cause improper duplication | Claimants: Certification would push Nnaka into premature appeal for gov’t’s benefit | Court: Stewart is distinguishable; certification not improper here |
| Whether Frow’s rule against irreconcilable judgments bars certification | Claimants: Frow requires withholding finality when joint liability could create irreconcilable results | Gov’t: This case does not involve truly joint liability requiring all defendants’ joint adjudication | Court: Frow inapplicable—liability is not truly joint and relief to prevailing claimants would remain effective |
Key Cases Cited
- Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v. Guest Servs., Inc., 630 F.3d 217 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (finality requires disposition of all claims against all parties absent Rule 54(b))
- Blue v. D.C. Pub. Schs., 764 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Rule 54(b) allows flexibility for appellate review in complex cases)
- Taylor v. FDIC, 132 F.3d 753 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (district court acts as dispatcher under Rule 54(b) to avoid piecemeal appeals)
- Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (1980) (defining finality for Rule 54(b) and standard for "no just reason for delay")
- Brooks v. Dist. Hosp. Partners, 606 F.3d 800 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (Rule 54(b) balancing justice to litigants and judicial administration)
- Whelan v. Abell, 953 F.2d 663 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (Frow applies only where liability is truly joint and relief requires judgment against all)
- Frow v. De la Vega, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 552 (1872) (vacatur of default where later adjudication of other defendants produces irreconcilable results)