Nichols v. The Cadle Company ( 1996 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion








    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

    _________________________


    No. 96-1777


    SARGENT D. NICHOLS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HE IS TRUSTEE OF

    ANDOVER NORTHWAY REALTY TRUST, ET AL.,

    Plaintiffs, Appellants,

    v.

    THE CADLE CO.,

    Defendant, Appellee.

    _________________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

    [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

    _________________________

    Before

    Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________

    Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________

    and Boudin, Circuit Judge. _____________

    _________________________

    Gilbert R. Hoy, Jr. for appellants. ___________________
    Alvin S. Nathanson, with whom Shannon M. Fitzpatrick and ___________________ _______________________
    Nathanson & Goldberg, PC were on brief, for appellee. ________________________

    _________________________

    December 19, 1996

    _________________________
















    Per Curiam. This appeal illustrates once again that Per Curiam. __________

    the overly generous use of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) by a well-

    intentioned district judge can create a minefield for litigants

    and appellate courts alike. Though the appeal itself amounts to

    an exercise in futility, see infra, it should serve as a reminder ___ _____

    that haste makes waste. There are often untoward consequences

    when judges too readily acquiesce in the suggested entry of

    "partial" final judgments.

    The basic procedural facts are undisputed. The

    plaintiffs owned valuable commercial real estate located in

    Peabody, Massachusetts. After their original lender plummeted

    into receivership, the defendant Cadle Co. (Cadle) acquired the

    mortgage on the property from the Federal Deposit Insurance

    Corporation. Inasmuch as the mortgage note was in arrears, Cadle

    foreclosed on the property and took possession of it.

    The plaintiffs sued, claiming inter alia breach of an _____ ____

    agreement to forbear (count 1), wrongful interference with

    economic relationships (count 2), fraud (count 3), and unfair

    trade practices in violation of Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93A, 11

    (count 5). The plaintiffs also sought specific performance of

    the supposed forbearance agreement (count 4) and declaratory

    relief (count 6). All six counts implicated the mortgage note,

    the foreclosure, and Cadle's conduct in respect thereto. Cadle

    denied the plaintiffs' allegations, pointed to the relatively low

    price that the property had brought at auction, and

    counterclaimed for the deficiency that it thought was due on the


    2












    mortgage note.

    After discovery had been conducted, the district court

    granted partial summary judgment in Cadle's favor. This ruling

    dispatched counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the complaint, leaving

    count 5 and Cadle's counterclaims unaffected. The court

    thereafter certified the judgment as final under Rule 54(b).1

    Although the court made a rote recitation that there was no just

    reason to delay the entry of judgment, it failed to substantiate

    that conclusion. Using the district court's Rule 54(b)

    certificate as a springboard, the plaintiffs prosecuted this

    appeal.

    It is trite, but true, that piecemeal appellate review

    invites mischief. Because the practice poses a host of

    potential problems we have warned, time and again, that Rule

    54(b) should be used sparingly. See, e.g., Consolidated Rail ___ ____ _________________

    Corp. v. Fore River Ry. Co., 861 F.2d 322, 325 (1st Cir. 1988); _____ __________________

    Spiegel v. Trustees of Tufts Coll., 843 F.2d 38, 43 (1st Cir. _______ ________________________

    1988); Santa Maria v. Owens-Ill., Inc., 808 F.2d 848, 854 (1st ___________ _________________

    Cir. 1986). We have also admonished that a district court intent
    ____________________

    1Ordinarily, a judgment is final (and, thus, appealable
    under 28 U.S.C. 1291) only if it conclusively determines all
    claims of all parties to the action. See generally Catlin v. ___ _________ ______
    United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945) (stating that a final _____________
    decision generally is one which "ends the litigation on the
    merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the
    judgment"). Rule 54(b) limns an exception to this principle. It
    provides in relevant part: "When more than one claim for relief
    is presented in an action . . . the court may direct the entry of
    a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the
    claims or parties . . . upon an express determination that there
    is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the
    entry of [such a] judgment. . . ."

    3












    upon setting the stage for the fragmentation of appellate review

    must explain the need for entering an earlier-than-usual judgment

    at least in cases where the explanation is not obvious from the

    record. See Feinstein v. Resolution Trust Corp., 942 F.2d 34, 39 ___ _________ ______________________

    (1st Cir. 1991); Spiegel, 843 F.2d at 43 & n.4; Pahlavi v. _______ _______

    Palandjian, 744 F.2d 902, 905 (1st Cir. 1984). __________

    In this instance the district court volunteered no

    meaningful explanation for its determination that a judgment

    should enter even though a substantial part of the case remained

    untried,2 and no good reason for the certification is apparent.

    The claims adjudicated on summary judgment and certified for

    appeal are inextricably intertwined with the claims left pending

    in the district court, and the parties to both sets of claims are

    precisely the same. As we predicted in Spiegel, 843 F.2d at 44, _______

    "[i]t will be a rare case where Rule 54(b) can appropriately be

    applied when the contestants on appeal remain, simultaneously,

    contestants below." This case falls within the generality of

    that prediction, not within the long-odds exception to it.3
    ____________________

    2The district court did note in its certificate that all the
    counts on which it granted summary judgment involved the
    propriety of the foreclosure. But that tells us very little as
    the claims that remained likewise involved the propriety of the
    foreclosure. The court also noted the desirability of
    discharging the lis pendens that the plaintiffs had filed, but ___ _______
    gave no reason to suspect that any particular urgency attended
    this discharge.

    3This case offers a testimonial to the wisdom that underlies
    the Spiegel doctrine. After the appeal had been fully briefed, _______
    the district court conducted a trial on the remaining claims and
    counterclaims. Cadle prevailed across the board. Immediately
    thereafter it moved to dismiss the appeal on grounds of res
    judicata and collateral estoppel. We do not reach the issues

    4












    Finally, the record reflects no special circumstances or

    overriding equities that might counsel in favor of permitting an

    immediate appeal from a plainly interlocutory order.

    We need go no further. Since the Rule 54(b)

    certificate in this case was improvidently granted, we lack

    appellate jurisdiction. See Consolidated Rail, 861 F.2d at 326; ___ _________________

    Spiegel, 843 F.2d at 46. _______

    The appeal is dismissed without prejudice for want of _______________________________________________________

    appellate jurisdiction. All parties shall bear their own costs. ______________________ ______________________________________





























    ____________________

    raised in the motion to dismiss, but its content illuminates the
    Serbonian bog into which appellate courts can be plunged by
    relaxed application of the rigorous standards that ought to be
    associated with Rule 54(b) certifications.

    5