Title: JACKSON v BURLINGTON NORTHERN IN

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

I N THE S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA No. 82-181 ------------ ALICE E. JACKSON, e t a l . , P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, V S . BURLINGTON NORTHERN, I N C . , e t a l . , Defendants and Appellants, and s a c " % 4 4 9 E 2 THE STATE O F MONTANA, Intervenor and Respondent. ------------ OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL -----em----- Eurlington Northern, Inc. ( r e f e r r e d t o h e r e a f t e r a s BN) appeals from an order of f i n a l judgment issued pursuant t o Rule 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., entered i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Seventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Richland County. Although o t h e r i s s u e s a r e r a i s e d , w e f i n d t h a t t h e procedural i s s u e of whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court has followed t h e proper procedure i n c e r t i f y i n g a f i n a l judgment pursuant t o Rule 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. i s d i s p o s i t i v e of t h i s appeal. O n July 15, 1981, BN made a motion f o r summary judgment. Its motion was denied by t h e D i s t r i c t Court on January 11, 1982. BN t h e r e a f t e r moved f o r an order e n t e r i n g f i n a l judgment pursuant t o Rule 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., on i s s u e s r a i s e d i n i t s motion f o r summary judgment. I n i t s order f o r f i n a l judgment dated A p r i l 16, 1982, t h e D i s t r i c t Court ordered " t h a t t h e Clerk of [the] Court e n t e r a f i n a l judgment upon t h e order dated January 11, 1982, denying defendant Burlington Northern, I n c . ' s motion f o r summary judgment, and t h e undersigned expressly determines t h a t t h e r e i s no just reason for delay in the entry of final judgment on said order." The District Court did not cite any of the factors it relied upon in certifying the judgment, nor did it enter the judgment as required by Rule 58, M.R.Civ.P. Rule 54(b), M.R.Civ.P., modeled after Rule 54(b), Fed.R.~iv.P., was designed to facilitate the entry of judgments on one or more claims, or as to one or more parties in multi-claim or multi-party actions. The basic purpose of Rule 54(b) is to avoid the possible injustice of delay in entering judgment on a distinctly separate claim or as to fewer than all of the parties until final adjudication of the entire case by making an immediate appeal available. 10 Wright and Miller Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2654 (1973), at 32; Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Elec. Co. (3rd Cir. 1975), 521 F.2d 360. Rule 54(b), M.R.Civ.P., states, "When multiple claims for relief or multiple parties are involved in an action, the court may direct the entry of final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.. . ." After reviewing the procedure followed by the District Court, we find that it did not comply with the requirements of Rule 54(b) for several reasons. First, in its order for final judgment, the District Court denied BN's motion for summary judgment. Rule 1, M.R.App.Civ.P., which determines from what judgments or orders an appeal nay be taken, does not include an order denying summary judgment as an appealable order. Indeed, "an order denying a motion f o r summary judgment i s an i n t e r l o c u t o r y order, whether made i n a s i n g l e claim, a multiple claims, o r multiple p a r t i e s a c t i o n , and 54(b) does n o t a f f e c t t h a t proposition." 6 Moore Federal P r a c t i c e B 54.40. Therefore, " t h e c e r t i f i c a t e i s n o t - conclusive a s t o t h e f i n a l i t y of t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s order. I f t h e order i s i n f a c t i n t e r l o c u t o r y , . . . an appeal from it w i l l be dismissed, even though t h e t r i a l c o u r t has decided t o t r e a t t h e orders a s f i n a l . " 1 0 Wright and M i l l e r , a t § 2655; Luria Bros. & Co. v. Rosenfeld ( 9 t h C i r . 1957), 2 4 4 F.2d 192. Second, t h e D i s t r i c t Court f a i l e d t o c i t e any of t h e f a c t o r s it r e l i e d upon when it c e r t i f i e d t h e judgment. Rule 54(b) s t a t e s t h a t t h e court must make "an express determination t h a t t h e r e i s no j u s t reason f o r delay . . According t o Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Elec. Co. (3rd C i r . 1975), 521 F.2d 360, " t h e D i s t r i c t Court must marshal1 and a r t i c u l a t e t h e f a c t o r s upon which it r e l i e d i n c e r t i f y i n g a judgment a s f i n a l s o t h a t prompt and e f f e c t i v e review can be f a c i l i t a t e d . " Allis-Chalmers was followed i n Roy v. Neibauer (1980), P 4 o n t . , 610 - - P.2d 1185, 37 St.Rep. 897, where t h i s Court dismissed t h e appeal without prejudice f o r f a i l u r e of t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o c i t e f a c t o r s a s t o why t h e r e was no j u s t reason f o r delay. F i n a l l y , t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d not e n t e r a f i n a l judgment. "A judgment is not f i n a l u n t i l it is set o u t s e p a r a t e l y and entered a s required by Rule 58." 1 0 Wright and M i l l e r , a t § 2656. Although t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d order t h e c l e r k of c o u r t t o e n t e r f i n a l judgment i n t h i s case, f i n a l judgment was never docketed i n t h e record. Therefore, t h i s Court is without j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear o r decide t h e m e r i t s of t h i s appeal. -3- W e dismiss t h i s appeal without prejudice. Dated this 14th day of October, 1 9 8 2 . # \ Chief Justice