Source: http://masscases.com/cases/app/9/9massappct250.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:59:00+00:00

Document:
J. B. L. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. vs. LINCOLN HOMES CORPORATION & others.
CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court on September 21, 1978.
Barbara J. Rouse (Arnold P. Messing with her) for Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency.
The plaintiff thereupon filed a motion that the court "[f]ind that there is no just reason for delay" and that it "[c]ertify that its order allowing the . . . motion to dismiss was and is a final judgment under Mass.R.Civ.P. Rule 54(b) [ 365 Mass. 821 (1974)] as to the rights of plaintiff and" MHFA. [Note 2] This motion was allowed by the judge who had allowed the motion to dismiss. He thereafter approved a form of judgment which purports to dismiss the action as to MHFA and contains a statement that it is a "final judgment pursuant to Mass.R. Civ.P. 54(b)." [Note 3] The plaintiff has appealed from that judgment.
We are met at the outset by MHFA's contention that we should dismiss the appeal because the judge abused the discretion committed to him under the provisions of Mass.R.Civ.P. 54(b). That rule was taken verbatim from Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). It is clear under the latter rule that an abuse of discretion by a lower court in acting under rule 54(b) is reviewable by an appellate court. Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 436, 437 (1956). [Note 4] Accordingly, we entertain MHFA's contention.
Elec. Co., 521 F.2d 360, 364, 365, 367 (3d Cir. 1975); United Bank of Pueblo v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 529 F.2d 490, 492 (10th Cir. 1976). As neither the owner nor the architect is a party to the appeal, neither would be bound by our resolution of those questions. See Panichella, supra, at 455. And, of course, those questions would all become moot if the jury should return verdicts for the owner. See Panichella, supra at 455; Campbell, supra at 943; Allis-Chalmers, supra at 364; 10 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Section 2659 (1973); Smith & Zobel, Rules Practice Section 54.6 (1977).
The judge did not follow the desirable practice of stating the reasons for his certification that there is no just reason for delay. See Gumer, supra at 286; Allis-Chalmers, supra at 364. We conclude that the certification was improvident (Gumer, supra at 285) and made for no better reason than the accommodation of counsel. See Panichella, supra at 455.
[Note 1] The motion appears to have been framed under Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), but was probably converted into a motion under Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(b), 365 Mass. 824 (1974), by reason of the judge's consideration of affidavits which set up facts not appearing on the face of the substitute complaint. See the fourth sentence of Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b). Nothing in this case turns on which rule was operative in the circumstances.
[Note 2] Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), 365 Mass. 821 (1974), reads as follows: "Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a 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. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties."
[Note 3] We assume for the purpose of decision in this case that the recited actions of the judge complied with the mechanical requirements of rule 54(b). But see Rollins Environmental Servs., Inc. v. Superior Court, 368. Mass. 174, 176-177 n.3 (1975); New England Canteen Serv., Inc. v. Ashley, 372 Mass. 671 , 677-678 (1977). See also Gumer v. Shearson, Hammill & Co., 516 F.2d 283, 286 (2d Cir. 1974); Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 521 F.2d 360, 364 (3d Cir. 1975).
[Note 4] See also Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engr. & Foundry Co., 351 U.S. 445, 452 (1956); Panichella v. Pennsylvania R.R., 252 F.2d 452, 453, 456 (3d Cir. 1958), S.C., 268 F.2d 72 (1959), cert, denied, 361 U.S. 932 (1960); Gass v. National Container Corp., 271 F.2d 231, 233 (7th Cir. 1959); Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc., 271 F.2d 257, 258 (7th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 928 (1960); Atkins, Kroll (Guam), Ltd. v. Cabrera, 277 F.2d 922, 924 (9th Cir. 1960); Zangardi v. Tobriner, 330 F.2d 224, 225 (D.C. Cir. 1964); Robbin v. American Univ., 330 F.2d 225, 226 (D.C. Cir. 1964); Campbell v. Westmoreland Farm, Inc., 403 F.2d 939, 942 (2d Cir. 1968); Gumer v. Shearson, Hammill & Co., 516 F.2d 283, 285-286 (2d Cir. 1974); Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 521 F.2d 360, 362 (3d Cir. 1975). The case last cited contains an excellent discussion of the factors which should be considered by a judge in exercising his discretion under rule 54(b). See 521 F.2d at 364.
[Note 5] None of the problems considered in this opinion was present in Pearce, Mayer & Greer, Inc. v. Attoyac Properties, Inc., 6 Mass. App. Ct. 863 (1978). In that case the plaintiff's claim against the principal debtor had already been reduced to judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim against the alleged lender.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.