Court Opinion

ID: 9449664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:18:28.523418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:55.812287
License: Public Domain

RIVES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
It seems to me that this Court does have jurisdiction of the appeal entered under Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., as construed in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 1956, 351 U.S. 427, 76 S.Ct. 895, 100 L.Ed. 1297, and Cold Metal Process Co. v. United, etc., Co., 1956, 351 U.S. 445, 453, 76 S.Ct. 904, 100 L.Ed. 1311.
In the Court’s opinion in the Sears, Roebuck case, it said;
“The District Court cannot, in the exercise of its discretion, treat as *698‘final’ that which is not ‘final’ within the meaning of § 1291. But the District Court may, by the exercise of its discretion in the interest of sound judicial administration, release for appeal final decisions upon one or more, but less than all, claims in multiple claims actions. The timing of such a release is, with good reason, vested by the rule primarily in the discretion of the District Court as the one most likely to be familiar with the case and with any justifiable reasons for delay. With equally good reason, any abuse of that discretion remains reviewable by the Court of Appeals.” 351 U.S. at 437, 76 S.Ct. at 900-901, 100 L.Ed. 1297.
In the Cold Metal case, the Court spoke to the particular situation of the present appeal, when, in the context of treating appeals from counterclaims and cross-claims, it said:
“If the District Court certifies a final order on a claim which arises out of the same transaction and occurrence as pending claims, and the Court of Appeals is satisfied that there has been no abuse of discretion, the order is appealable.” 351 U.S. at 452, 76 S.Ct. at 908-909, 100 L.Ed. 1311.
My Brothers think that the Cold Metal case is not contrary to their conclusion because, as said in their footnote 6:. “The main claim and the counterclaim in that case did not involve the same facts, but merely arose in part out of the same transactions.” With deference, I submit that any such distinction is negatived by Mr. Justice Frankfurter, joined by Mr. Justice Harlan, concurring in Sears, Roebuck while dissenting from Cold Metal:
“Count II in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, ante, [351 U.S.] p. 427 [76 S.Ct. p. 895, 100 L.Ed. 1297],. is appealable since the transactions and occurrences involved in it do not involve any of those embraced in Counts III and IV. Count I involves at least two transactions which are-also the subject matter of Counts III and IV, but is appealable under § 1292(1) as an interlocutory order denying an injunction. In Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co., post, [351 U.S.] p. 445 [76 S.Ct. p. 904, 100 L.Ed. 1311], the counterclaim, even if not compulsory, is based in substantial part on the transactions involved in the main litigation and hence not appealable.” 351 U.S. at 443-444, 76 S.Ct. at 903-904, 100 L.Ed. 1297.
My Brothers do not hold that the district court abused its discretion in releasing for appeal the judgment on the counterclaim. They simply say in their footnote 6: “In any event, we would not consider that the trial judge had discretion under the facts of this case to enter the certificate and direct entry of the judgment under Rule 54(b).” With deference, that seems to me directly contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sears, Roebuck and Cold Metal, supra. I think that it is contrary, also, to the decisions of this and other courts of appeals,1 and to the leading text writers.2
Clearly, I submit, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. *699It was in better position than are we to judge of the complexity and length of a hearing to determine the amount of damages. The issue of liability is precisely the same now as it will be after the district court has had a hearing and entered judgment for the damages on the original claim.
I respectfully dissent.

. See, e. g., Norris Manufacturing Company v. R. E. Darling Co., 4 Cir., 1963, 315 F.2d 633; Kincade v. C & L Rural Electric Cooperative Corp., 5 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 929; International Terminal Op. Co. v. Waterman SS. Co., 2 Cir., 1959, 272 P. 2d 15; Tompkins Motor Lines v. Georgia Broilers, 5 Cir., 1958, 260 F.2d 830.

. For example: “Wherever more than one claimant requests relief, as by counterclaim, cross-claim, etc., more than one ‘claim for relief’ is presented, regardless of the factual similarity of the claims, since the claimants could have enforced their claims separately. The rule, in express terms, contemplates this result, and it is supported by the holding and language of the Cold Metal case.’’ 3 Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, p. 28. See also, 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd ed., section 54.35.