Courtney Angeli, OSB No. 941765 

courtney@baaslaw.com 

Kristine Lambert, OSB No. 010684 

kristine@baaslaw.com 

BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL 

& SULLIVAN LLP 

321 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: 503-974-5015 

Facsimile: 971-230-0337 

Attorneys for Defendant Paul Sims 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

SARAH LEE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TREES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and 

PAUL SIMS, an individual, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:15-cv-00165-AC 

STIPULATED Fll QF6Sfilft FINAL 

JUDGMENT DISMISSING WITH 

PREJUDICE ALL CLAIMS 

BETWEEN PLAINTIFF SARAH LEE 

AND DEFENDANT PAUL SIMS 

/)n June 16, 2017, this Court issued its Order granting defendant Sims' motion to enforce 

the settlement agreement between defendant Paul Sims and plaintiff Sarah Lee (ECF No. 112). 

Pursuant to that Order, all claims by Lee against Sims and all counterclaims by Sims against Lee are 

dismissed with prejudice, and the settlement agreement between them is enforced. As of the date of 

the Order, Lee, on behalf of herself and her respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors 

and assigns shall have fully, finally and forever waived, released and discharged any and all 

Page 1 - STIPULATED PR6:f6SJ!ll) FINAL JUDGMENT DISMISSING WITH 

PREJUDICE ALL CLAIMS BETWEEN PLAINTIFF SARAH LEE AND DEFENDANT 

PAUL SIMS 
claims against Sims relating to the institution and prosecution of this litigation, and shall forever 

be enjoined from instituting, maintaining or prosecuting any or all such claims. As of the date of 

the Order, Sims, on behalf of himself and his respective heirs, executors, administrators, 

successors and assigns shall have fully, finally and forever waived, released and discharged any 

and all claims against Lee relating to the institution and prosecution of this litigation, and shall 

forever be enjoined from instituting, maintaining or prosecuting any or all such claims. 

Following the Comt's Order, the only claims remaining before the Court are claims between 

Lee and defendant Trees, Inc. 

Sims moved for entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Fed. R.Civ. P. because there 

is no just reason for delay and to ensure that an appeal by Lee of the June 16, 2017, if any, occurs 

immediately so that he is not prejudiced by a later appeal. No party opposes Sims' Motion for Entry 

of Judgment. 

Rule 54(b) requires that the judgment to be entered be final as to the claims it addresses, 

and that there be no just reason for delay. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 436 

(1956). A final judgment is "an ultimate disposition" as to an individual claim or party that 

occurs in the course of a multiple claims action. Birkes v. Tillamook County, No. 3:09-CV-1084-

AC, 2012 WL 2178964, *1 (D. Or. June 13, 2012). There is a final judgment as to all claims 

against Sims by Lee and all counterclaims against Lee by Sims because this Court has 

determined that Sims and Lee entered into a full and final agreement to settle all claims between 

them. 

In determining whether there is any just reason to delay, the Court may consider whether 

the claims under review are severable from the other claims in the case and whether the nature of 

the claims already determined is such that no appellate court would have to decide the same 

Page 1 - STIPULATED@ .. :t1?Sl!ID FINAL JUDGMENT DISMISSING WITH 

PREJUDICE ALL CLAIMS BETWEEN PLAINTIFF SARAH LEE AND DEFENDANT 

PAUL SIMS 
issues more than once even ifthere were subsequent appeals. Nw. Pipe Co. v. RLI Ins. Co., 3 :09-

CV-01126-BR, 2014 WL 2040073, at *1-3 (D. Or. May 16, 2014), affd, 649 F. App'x. 643 (9th 

Cir. 2016). Having considered the standard for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b), the Court 

finds that it is appropriate to enter judgment under Rule 54(b) as to Lee's four causes of action 

against Sims and as to Sims' five counterclaims against Lee. There is no just reason to delay 

entry of final judgment on these adjudicated claims and counterclaims. 

First, the Court's Order eliminates all claims and counterclaims between Sims and Lee. 

The claims remaining in the lawsuit are all between Lee and Trees, Inc. While the claims against 

Sims and Trees have factual overlap, entry of judgment is appropriate in this case because the 

factual and legal issues that form and basis of the June 16, 2017 Order and result in the Rule 

54(b) certification are legally distinct and severable from any other issue remaining. 

Second, there is no danger that any issue addressed on an appeal from an entry of 

judgment would arise in a subsequent appeal in this matter. AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. 

Dialysis! West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 954 (9111 Cir. 2006). Any appeal would relate squarely to the 

enforceability of the settlement agreement, and would not touch on the merits of the underlying 

dispute. 

A court may also enter judgment under Rule 54(b) if, as here, it assists in the expeditious 

resolution of the case. Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). If Lee decides 

to appeal the Court's Order, justice would be best served by an immediate appeal. Requiring an 

appeal to be taken at this early stage will save judicial resources. Sims has not completed 

discovery and, if this decision was overturned after the Lee/Trees matter was finalized, Sims 

would be forced to revisit many of the underlying factual issues and resume depositions with 

parties that may have also been involved in the Lee/Trees case. An entry of final judgment 

Page 1- STIPULATED PR<"lF8SED FINAL JUDGMENT DISMISSING WITH 

PREJUDICE ALL CLAIMS BETWEEN PLAINTIFF SARAH LEE AND DEFENDANT 

PAUL SIMS 
would ensure that when Lee's case goes to trial, all relevant parties and issues are included. The 

underlying case does not yet have a trial date, discovery is still open, and the patties are awaiting 

a decision on summary judgment. Entering final judgment under Rule 54(b) will aid all parties 

in ensuring the most efficient handling of the litigation and ensure that important judicial 

resources are not wasted. 

Finally, it is appropriate for the Court to consider the balance of equities when 

considering a final judgment. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 954-55. This balancing 

favors final judgment because of the significant emotional and financial toll this matter has taken 

on Sims, an individual. Allowing appeal at some unlmown future date would unnecessarily 

prejudice Sims as he would need to stay involved with the case, attend hearings, and continue 

reviewing discovery materials. He also would be unable to make personal financial decisions 

related to his retirement while he waits for the Lee!frees matter to conclude due to possible 

additional legal fees that he would incur following a later appeal. 

Sims' Motion for Entry ofJudgment is granted. 

There being no just reason for further delay, pursuant to Rule 54(b ), the Clerk is hereby 

ordered to enter final judgment in accordance with the foregoing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/ +l, Dated thisL-t" day ofJuly, 2017. 

/ 

!,_? l

·/;. 

Johll V. Acosta 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Page 1- STIPULATED PRO! 59@ FINAL JUDGMENT DISMISSING WITH 

PREJUDICE ALL CLAIMS BETWEEN PLAINTIFF SARAH LEE AND DEFENDANT 

PAUL SIMS