Court Opinion

ID: 9698579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:54:35.014969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:42.072725
License: Public Domain

MESCHKE, Justice,
concurring.
I continue to disagree with remodeling Rule 54(b). See my dissents in Peterson v. Zerr, 443 N.W.2d 293 (N.D.1989) and Club Broadway, Inc. v. Broadway Park, 443 N.W.3d 919 (N.D.1989). Rule 54(b) does not expressly call for “unusual and compelling circumstances.” The “no just reason for delay” standard in the rule was intended to be far more deferential to the discretion of the trial court. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 11 54.41[3]. The majority opinion reflects little “recognition that in many instances the postponement of any judgment until all the claims and the interests of all the parties [have] been disposed of would cause great inconvenience, and at times plain injustice.” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 54.43. For reasons of certainty and deference, I would not usually conclude that a trial court abused its discretion in a Rule 54(b) certification.
Encouragingly, the majority recognizes that “the presence of a unique or complex controlling issue of law ... may be a relevant factor ... in the Rule 54(b) equation.” Footnote 4. Unfortunately, no effort has been made to examine the difficult issues raised on this appeal for “unique or complex” qualities. Although we are apparently unable to recognize those characteristics for ourselves in this case, this should be a useful clue for future certifications.
The majority also recognizes that “age, health, and financial condition” may be equitable factors which can be “unusual and compelling.” Footnote 4. Unhappily, the potential scope and cost of duplicative trials is not factored into that equitable equation. Nonetheless, an intermediate final judgment can eliminate unnecessary evidence, confine the issues, save litigants ex*583pense in trial preparation, shorten the trial, promote settlement, and expedite the work of a trial court. See Combined Bronx Amusements, Inc. v. Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc., 132 F.Supp. 921, 922 (S.D.N.Y.1955); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 54.41[3]. Thus, many factors are pertinent to a Rule 54(b) certification. Someday, a record of “hardship” may be well enough developed to enable a plaintiff to reach reviewable nirvana.
Since the trial court’s decisions here do not settle all of the issues as to some parties as in Zerr, supra and Broadway Park, supra, I am not as uneasy about second-guessing this Rule 54(b) certification as I was in those cases. Although I would prefer to reach the merits of these issues, I reluctantly concur.