UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

 

WILLIAM T. RUCKER ) 

And MARIE RUCKER, ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:15-CV-272-TLS 

 ) 

RDS FARM, INC., DAVID L. ALLEN, ) 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER ) 

CORPORATION, and ) 

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., ) 

 Defendants, ) 

------------------------------------------------ ) 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER ) 

CORPORATION d/b/a AMTRAK, ) 

 Cross-Claimant, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

DAVID L. ALLEN and RDS FARM, INC., ) 

 Cross-Defendants, ) 

--------------------------------------------------- ) 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER ) 

CORPORATION d/b/a AMTRAK, ) 

 Third Party Plaintiff ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

RONALD ALLEN, ) 

 Third Party Defendant ) 

OPINION AND ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Entry of Judgment under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 54(b) [ECF No. 84], filed on September 6, 2017, by Defendants National 

Railroad Corporation d/b/a Amtrak (Amtrak) and CSX Transportation (CSX). On November 14, 

2017, the Court held a telephone conference between the parties and the Plaintiff indicated at that 

time that they do not object to the Motion for Entry of Judgment. [see ECF No. 90]. 
2

 On August 28, 2017, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants 

Amtrak and CSX [ECF No. 81]. However, the Plaintiffs’ claims remained pending against 

Defendants RDS Farm, Inc. and David Allen and Amtrak’s cross-claim and Third Party 

Complaint remained pending at that time; therefore, the Court did not enter final judgment. On 

November 1, 2017, Amtrak entered a Stipulation [ECF No. 87] voluntarily dismissing the crossclaim and Third Party Complaint against the cross-Defendants RDS Farm, Inc. and David Allen. 

On November 2, 2017, the Plaintiffs joined in the Stipulation [ECF No. 88]. On November 14, 

2017, the Clerk entered dismissal of the cross claim and Third Party Complaint [ECF No. 91]. 

Therefore, no claims remain pending against or by Defendants Amtrak and CSX at this point. 

 In their Motion for Entry of Judgment, Defendants Amtrak and CSX request that the 

Court enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), finding no reason for 

delay and directing the Clerk to enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs. The 

Defendants also state that the certification and entry of final judgment do not impair the 

Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining Defendants. 

Rule 54(b) permits a district court, in a case involving multiple claims or parties, to 

“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(b). 

“‘Rule 54(b) permits entry of a partial final judgment only when all of one party’s claims or 

rights have been fully adjudicated, or when a distinct claim has been fully resolved with respect 

to all parties.’” Lottie v. W. Am. Ins. Co., 408 F.3d 935, 938 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Factory 

Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bobst Group USA, Inc., 392 F.3d 922, 924 (7th Cir. 2004)). Rule 54(b) 

authorizes a district court to enter final judgment on a single claim only if that claim is separate 
3

from the claim or claims remaining for decision in the district court—separate not in the sense of 

arising under a different statute or legal doctrine—but in the sense of involving different facts. 

Ty, Inc. v. Publ’ns Int’l Ltd., 292 F.3d 512, 515 (7th Cir. 2002) (explaining that, unless the facts 

are different, the appellate court would have to go over the same ground when the judgment 

terminating the entire case is appealed); see also Lottie, 408 F.3d 938–39 (“We have insisted that 

Rule 54(b) be employed only when the subjects of the partial judgment do not overlap with those 

remaining in the district court.”). “If there is a great deal of factual or legal overlap between the 

counts, then they are considered the same claim for Rule 54(b) purposes.” Horwitz v. Alloy Auto. 

Co., 957 F.2d 1431, 1434 (7th Cir. 1992). “Rule 54(b) allows appeal without delay of claims that 

are truly separate and distinct from those that remain in the district court, where ‘separate’ means 

having minimal factual overlap.” Lottie, 408 F.3d at 939. “These requirements are designed to 

ensure that the claim is distinct—the sort of dispute that, but for the joinder options in the Rules 

of Civil Procedure, would be a stand-alone lawsuit.” Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 392 F.3d at 924. This 

rule is properly “employed only when the subjects of the partial judgment do not overlap with 

those ongoing in the district court.” Id. A Rule 54(b) judgment must be supported by specific 

reasons showing that an immediate appeal is truly necessary. United States v. Ettrick Wood 

Prods., Inc., 916 F.2d 1211, 1218 (7th Cir. 1990). The norm in litigation is “one appeal per 

case.” Id.; Horm v. Transcon Lines, Inc., 898 F.2d 589, 592 (7th Cir. 1990) (noting that the norm 

“prevents duplicative and time-consuming appeals”). 

Although certification is often requested to allow a party to appeal a district court’s 

decision even though it does not finally resolve the litigation, immediate appealability is not the 

sole consequence of a final judgment. Importantly, it is not the reason the Defendants seek 
4

certification in this case—summary judgment was entered in their favor and there do not appear 

to be any issues that would warrant delaying an appeal, if any. 

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs would not be prejudiced by being required to satisfy a 

judgment entered upon the claims against Amtrak and CSX. Moreover, the facts alleged by the 

Plaintiffs as to Amtrak and CSX do not significantly overlap with the facts alleged against RDS 

Farm, Inc. and David Allen. 

For these reasons, as the parties elaborated upon during the November 17, 2017, 

telephonic status conference, in accordance with Rule 54(b), the Court finds that there is no just 

reason for delay. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Entry of Final Judgment and 

DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of Amtrak and CSX and against the 

Plaintiffs. 

 SO ORDERED on November 20, 2017. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT