Court Opinion

ID: 9861268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:51:41.031619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:55.732687
License: Public Domain

MESCHKE, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent for the reasons given in my dissent to Peterson v. Zerr, supra.
Again, the majority opinion views this litigation from the incomplete perspective of an appendix on a fragment of the proceeding below. The majority again picks *923apart the trial court’s reasons and fells each one “standing alone.” For example, the trial court determined that “there are specific allegations against Fercho and Fridlund individually, which will not be disposed of by trial ... against the other Defendants.” The majority reweighs this determination, emphasizing pleadings about “in concert” action by multiple defendants, and substitutes its own mechanistic analysis. “[FJactually and legally” related claims are thought to be so “intertwined and interrelated” that “we will surely be required to review the same factual situation again ...”, as if our appellate workload was the only important factor in judicial efficiency. Unless the trial court takes the broad hint in footnote 2 of the majority opinion, gives way, and holds a single trial even if there are separable issues, the burden on the plaintiffs to undergo two difficult trials on the same subject is left out of mind.
Again, plaintiffs cannot use Rule 54(b) because they do not have any “cognizable, unusual hardships” qualifying for the “infrequent harsh case” envisioned by the majority as the extreme factor for Rule 54(b) judge-made finality. The majority again perverts Rule 54(b) with a peevish response to the “hydraulic-like pressure” of too many appeals, too poorly submitted.
Rule 54(b) does not include the vague and uncertain standard used by the majority. Rather, 54(b) was deliberately designed for certainty and clarity. “Ordinarily litigants should be able to rely on the express action of the trial court creating a final and appealable judgment. See 6 Moore’s Federal Practice It 54.04[3-5], footnote 4.” Peterson v. Zerr, supra, at 304 (Justice Meschke, concurring and dissenting). While “[fjor procedure generally, certainty is more important than correctness,” [Regstad v. Steffes, 433 N.W.2d 202, 205 (N.D.1988) (Justice Meschke, concurring)]» even certainty is now gone.
Caprice has replaced certainty. A bright line has become a twilight zone.