IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DONNA DEITRICK, : Civil Action No. 4:06-CV-01556

 :

Plaintiff, : (Judge Brann)

 :

v. :

 :

MARK A. COSTA, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Arbuckle) 

 :

 :

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM

August 18, 2015

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Donna Deitrick’s Motion for 

the Entrance of Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 436). Briefing has concluded,

1

the Motion is ripe for 

consideration and, for the reasons discussed below, the Motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

This matter comes before the Court as a result of the Court’s April 9, 2015 

Order adopting Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle III’s Report and 

Recommendation. (ECF No. 414). That Order granted judgment in favor of 

Defendant Jane Acri and terminated her from the case. Id. After filing an appeal 

 

1

The Court notes that Ms. Deitrick filed her brief in support of the Motion nineteen days after 

filing the Motion, well outside of the allowed fourteen days. Defendant Jane Acri filed a brief in 

opposition on July 16, 2014. (ECF No. 438). Ms. Deitrick has filed no reply brief, and the time 

to do so has now lapsed.

Case 4:06-cv-01556-WIA Document 441 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 5
2

with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, on June 25, 2015, 

Ms. Deitrick filed this Motion, seeking entrance of final judgment and a partial 

stay of proceedings. (ECF No. 436). 

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 54(b) provides that:

When an action presents more than one claim for relief--whether as a 

claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim--or when 

multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final 

judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only 

if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54. In entertaining a motion under Rule 54(b), the district court 

acts “as a ‘dispatcher’” to determine “the ‘appropriate time’ when each final 

decision in a multiple claims action is ready for appeal.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. 

Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980) (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 

351 U.S. 427, 435 (1956)). The district court exercises its discretion “in the 

interest of sound judicial administration.” Id. (quoting Mackey, 351 U.S. at 437). 

A district court must balance “considerations of judicial administrative 

interests (preservation of the federal policy against piecemeal appeals) and equities 

(justice to the litigants).” Carter v. City of Philadelphia, 181 F.3d 339, 346 (3d Cir. 

1999) (citing Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 8). “Factors to be considered therefore 

include ‘whether the claims under review [are] separable from the others remaining 

to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already determined [is] such 

Case 4:06-cv-01556-WIA Document 441 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 5
3

that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even 

if there were subsequent appeals.’” Id. (alterations in original). 

Exercising its discretion, this Court determines that there is just reason for 

delay. The Court recognizes that there is some small risk of piecemeal litigation. 

It is possible that, after denying Ms. Deitrick’s Rule 54(b) Motion, the remaining 

parties will complete trial and thereafter, the Third Circuit may reverse this Court’s 

grant of summary judgment and remand the case with instructions to reinstate Ms. 

Acri as a defendant. In this situation, Ms. Deitrick would have to proceed in a 

second trial. However, this possibility is outweighed by the prejudice that would 

result to the Defendants if Ms. Deitrick’s Motion were granted, as well as the 

detrimental effect that Rule 54(b) entry would have on judicial economy.

First, entering final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) and granting a partial 

stay of proceedings would force this case to a grinding halt. It appears likely that 

this case will proceed to trial relatively soon, and prior to the issuance of any 

decision by the Third Circuit on the merits of Ms. Deitrick’s appeal. This means

that, to avoid two trials, this matter would need to be delayed. With significant 

assistance from Magistrate Judge Arbuckle, this Court has endeavored for the past 

two and one-half years to push this case back on track toward a timely conclusion. 

This action has now passed its ninth year in the Middle District of Pennsylvania 

Case 4:06-cv-01556-WIA Document 441 Filed 08/18/15 Page 3 of 5
4

without conclusion, and the Court will not allow it to drag on for an additional nine 

years without resolution.

Second, it is apparent that significant prejudice would befall Ms. Acri if the 

Court entered final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). Bearing in mind the 

possibility that she may be reinstated as a defendant in this case, Ms. Acri would 

likely need to prepare for trial in order to account for the possibility that she may

once again be added as a defendant. This would entail the expenditure of 

significant time and money in preparation for an event that may well never occur. 

Finally, granting Ms. Deitrick’s Motion would prejudice several other 

Defendants. Following her dismissal from the case, Ms. Acri, without objection 

from Ms. Deitrick, entered her appearance as the attorney of record for Defendants 

Linda Long, Vanessa (Long) Yoncuski, and Robert Yoncuski (collectively the 

“Long/Yoncuski Defendants”). (ECF No. 419). Previous counsel for the 

Long/Yoncuski Defendants withdrew from the case without objection from Ms. 

Deitrick. (ECF No. 432). Granting Ms. Deitrick’s Motion would again raise the 

specter of Ms. Acri being called as a material witness in the case. This possibility 

would force Ms. Acri to withdraw as counsel for the Long/Yoncuski Defendants, 

which would in turn force the Long/Yoncuski Defendants to find replacement 

counsel. More time and money would be expended for replacement counsel to 

reacquaint himself with the case (assuming the Long/Yoncuski Defendants’ former 

Case 4:06-cv-01556-WIA Document 441 Filed 08/18/15 Page 4 of 5
5

counsel would be willing to reenter the case). Consequently, the Court concludes 

that a balance of the equities militates against granting Ms. Deitrick’s Motion.

IV. CONCLUSION

After balancing the aforementioned factors, the Court determines that just 

reason for delay exists. Therefore, Ms. Deitrick’s Motion for the Entrance of Final 

Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is denied.

An appropriate Order will follow.

BY THE COURT:

/s Matthew W. Brann

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-01556-WIA Document 441 Filed 08/18/15 Page 5 of 5