Court Opinion

ID: 9549251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:15:23.56335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:02.019596
License: Public Domain

BERMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I dissent.
If ever a case warranted certification under C.R.C.P. 54(b), this is it. There are 101 named plaintiffs, all of whom joined in a single suit requesting injunctive relief and damages under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. The trial court correctly perceived, when it entered its 54(b) order, that the case would be determined primarily by whether or not the trial court was correct in issuing the permanent injunction, and evidently the parties, by not objecting here to the entry of the order, perceived the same effect.
Nor does the entry of a 54(b) order here involve any dissipation of judicial resources; on the contrary, a profligate expenditure of judicial resources will be an inevitable consequence of the majority’s dismissal of this appeal under the dictates of Harding Glass Co. v. Jones, 640 P.2d 1123 (Colo.1982). By this dismissal we are requiring the trial court to have 101 separate proceedings to determine the amount of damages suffered by each of the 101 plaintiffs. Worse yet, if the issuance of the permanent injunction is eventually held to be in error, then all these individual determinations will have been for naught.
The judiciary is constantly engaged in efforts to conserve judicial time, not to mention ways to reduce high costs of litigation. The dismissal of this appeal pursuant to the holding in Harding Glass Co., supra, is directly contrary to these goals.
In the face of this decision, I find little reason to believe that C.R.C.P. 54(b) has any viable purpose left. Perhaps our judicial system would be best disposed to eliminate the right for any 54(b) certification.