UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

DEE FRYE, et al., )

) 

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 3:13-CV-113

)

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE )

CO., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for

Certification of Final Judgment, filed by Defendant, Nationwide

Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”), on June 4, 2015. (DE

#93.) For the reasons set forth below, this motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On February 15, 2015, this Court entered summary judgment in

favor of Nationwide and dismissed it from this case. (DE #88.) 

However, the claims against co-Defendant, Auto-Owners Insurance

Company (“Auto Owners”), currently remain pending. (Id.) Citing

only to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and providing no

argument or analysis whatsoever, Nationwide now asks this Court to

construe the aforementioned order as a final judgment against it

and expressly determine that there is no just reason for delay

associated with the entry of final judgment. (DE #93.) 
DISCUSSION

“When an action presents more than one claim for relief . . .

or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry

of a final judgment . . . only if the court expressly determines

that there is no just reason for delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 

The decision of whether to grant final judgment under Rule 54(b) is

“left to the sound judicial discretion of the district court.” 

Curtiss-Wright v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 10 (1980).

In making this determination, the district court must

determine that it is dealing with a “final judgment,” which is an

ultimate disposition of an individual, cognizable claim for relief

entered in the course of a multiple claims action. Id. The court

must then determine whether there are no just reasons to delay the

appeal of the final judgment, taking into account judicial

administrative interests as well as the equities involved. Id.

Rule 54(b) allows defendants to determine at the earliest possible

opportunity whether they may stop defending against claims or

plaintiffs. Continental Cas. Co. v. Anderson Excavating & Wrecking

Co., 189 F.3d 512, 518 (7th Cir. 1999). However, a defendant’s

interest in finality can be outweighed by the duplicative work

arising from successive appeals if the claims remaining in the

district court are not sufficiently distinct from the claims given

finality under Rule 54(b). Lottie v. West American Insurance Co.,

of Ohio Casualty Group of Insurance Cos., 408 F.3d 935, 938 (7th

Cir. 2005) (noting that “Rule 54(b) be employed only when the
subjects of the partial judgment do not overlap with those

remaining in the district court.”). 

Here, the Court finds that the dismissed claims are not

sufficiently separate and distinct – both legally and factually —

to warrant granting the motion. Nationwide has not described why

its interest in finality would outweigh the concerns of judicial

economy that would arise by the duplicative work from successive

appeals of the dismissed and pending claims. Therefore, the Court

cannot conclude that there is no just reason for delay. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, this motion is DENIED.

DATED: July 8, 2015 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court