Opinion ID: 2823813
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: C.R.C.P. 54(b) Jurisdiction

Text: Â¶10Â Â Â Â Â Â Â As a threshold matter, we address the Engineersâ contention that the trial court erred in directing the entry of a final judgment under C.R.C.P. 54(b) and, that consequently, we must dismiss this appeal. That rule provides:Â 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 asÂ 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. (Emphasis added.) Â¶11Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Thus, Rule 54(b) creates an exception to the universal requirement that the trial courtâs final judgment must resolve all claims for relief in a case before a party can bring an appeal. See Â§ 13-4-102(1), C.R.S. (2014); C.A.R. 1(a). A final judgment is one that ends the particular action and leaves nothing more for the trial court to do to completely determine the rights of the parties. In re Estate of McCreath, 240 P.3d 413, 417 (Colo. App. 2009); see also Driscoll v. Dist. Court, 870 P.2d 1250, 1252 (Colo. 1994) (holding that a judgment is final when it disposes of the entire litigation on the merits). A trial court may issue a Rule 54(b) certification only if three requirements are met: (1) the decision certified must be a ruling upon an entire claim for relief; (2) the decision certified must be final in the sense of an ultimate disposition of an individual claim; and (3) the trial court must determine that there is no just reason for delay in entry of a final judgment on the claim. Lytle v. Kite, 728 P.2d 305, 308 (Colo. 1986). While the âno just reason for delayâ question is committed to the trial court's discretion, the other two requirements are ânot truly discretionary.â Id.Â Â¶12Â Â Â Â Â Â Â An appellate courtâs jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of a judgment certified pursuant to Rule 54(b) depends upon a correct certification. Harding Glass Co. v. Jones, 640 P.2d 1123, 1126 (Colo. 1982). A trial court cannot treat as final that which is not final. Id. at 1125. We review de novo the legal sufficiency of the trial court's C.R.C.P. 54(b) certification. Richmond Am. Homes of Colo., Inc. v. Steel Floors, LLC, 187 P.3d 1199, 1203 (Colo. App. 2008) Â¶13Â Â Â Â Â Â Â After considering the requirements of Rule 54(b), the water court in this case concluded: Before any party spends additional time and resources on engineering, this court believes it would be beneficial for the Supreme Court to give the parties direction as to how this case should proceed. There are potentially far reaching implications associated with the resolution of these issues and an appeal will further the interest of judicial administration by adding clarity to the preclusive effect of ditch-wide decrees, and which party has the burden to demonstrate whether a change in circumstances have or have not occurred since entry of the decree. (Emphasis added.) Â¶14Â Â Â Â Â Â Â However, the interest of judicial administration is not a sufficient reason to make a Rule 54(b) certification without an attendant final judgment on a claim for relief. Rule 54(b) provides for an appeal of a judgment resolving either an entire claim in a multi-claim action or a single claim against one of many parties. Â¶15Â Â Â Â Â Â Â A âclaimâ is the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts. Kieckhafer v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 2012 COA 124, Â¶ 15, 284 P.3d 202, 207. The ultimate determination of application of Rule 54(b) certification depends on whether the underlying factual bases for recovery state aÂ number of different claims that could be separately enforced or involve a multiplicity of defendants against which a claim could be separately enforced Kempter v. Hurd, 713 P.2d 1274, 1278 (Colo. 1986).