EXPLOSIVES SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

COLUMBIA NITROGEN CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

11th Cir. | 1982-11-08

No. 82-7139

Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, FAY and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

691 F.2d 486 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1982) Positive Treatment

Cited by 6 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court held that a district court is not required to state explicit reasons for certifying a counterclaim under Rule 54(b) if the opinion demonstrates separability of claims.

Facts & Procedural History

Appellants appealed a Rule 54(b) judgment granted by the district court in favor of appellees' counterclaim. Appellants argued the district court abus…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Certification Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 54(B) Certification Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(B) Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review)

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Certification cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

CLARK, Circuit Judge:

Appellants, Explosives Supply Company, Inc., et ah, appeal the district court’s grant of a Rule 54(b) judgment in favor of appellees’ counterclaim. Pursuant to the mandate of Rule 54(b),1 the district court made an express determination that no just reason for delay existed and expressly directed the entry of judgment. Appellants maintain that the trial court abused its discretion in certifying the counterclaim in the absence of stated reasons as to why such a determination was made. We find no merit in such a per se requirement.

In Rothenberg v. Security Management Company, Inc., 617 F. 2d 1149 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 954, 101 S.Ct. 359, 66 L.Ed.2d 218 (1980),2 the Fifth Circuit held that a district court is not required, in every case, to express its reasons for concluding that there is no just reason for delay. See In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation, 680 F. 2d 1338 (11th Cir. 1982). However, the desirability of such a statement of reasons is obvious since such an explanation would assist appellate courts in reviewing district court decisions. See Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. General Electric Company, 446 U.S. 1, 100 S.Ct. 1460, 64 L.Ed.2d 1 (1980); Rothenberg v. Security Management Company, Inc. The articulation of reasons need not be in the judgment itself but may appear, as here, from the face of the opinion. In the instant case, the opinion of the lower court clearly shows the separability of the claims such that neither the same issues nor facts would be before the reviewing court more than once. For these reasons, we hold that the district court acted within its discretion in certifying appellees’ counterclaim.

AFFIRMED.

. Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part:

When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment____

. In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this court adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions that the Former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Paule Ebrahimi v. City OF Huntsville Bd. OF Educ., 114 F.3d 162 (11th Cir. 1997)

…e court should support that conclusion by clearly and cogently articulating its reasoning, together with the supporting factual and legal determinations. Southeast Banking, 69 F. 3d at 1546; see also Explosives Supply Co. v. Columbia Nitrogen Corp., 691 F. 2d 486, 486 (11th Cir.1982); Morrison-Knudsen Co., 655 F. 2d at 965. The expression of clear and cogent findings of fact is crucial because it not only facilitates appellate review of a Rude 54(b) certification, but also assists the district court itself i…
In re Se. Banking Corp. v. Bassett, 69 F.3d 1539 (11th Cir. 1995)

…certification is appropriate, the district court should support its conclusion by clearly and cogently expressing its reasoning and the factual and legal determinations supporting that reasoning. Cf. Explosives Supply Co. v. Columbia Nitrogen Corp., 691 F. 2d 486, 486 (11th Cir.1982) (observing that the district court is not required, in every case, to express its reasoning, although “the desirability of such a statement of reasons is obvious since an explanation would assist appellate courts in reviewing di…
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Morley, 915 F.2d 1517 (11th Cir. 1990)

…iciency judgment and the amended deficiency judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) is also without merit. Our review is again limited to determining whether the district court abused its discretion, Explosives Supply Co. v. Columbia Nitrogen Corp., 691 F. 2d 486, 486 (11th Cir.1982), and we find no such abuse. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. . We affirmed the grant of summary judgment in FDIC v. Morley, 867 F. 2d 1381 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 110 S.…

Authorities Cited

Bonner v. City OF Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)
Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1980)
Silverman v. United States, 449 U.S. 954 (U.S. 1980)
Williams v. United States, 449 U.S. 954 (U.S. 1980)
In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litig. LEX TEX Ltd., Inc. v. Unifi, Inc., 680 F.2d 1338 (11th Cir. 1982)
Rothenberg v. Sec. Mgmt. Co., Inc., 617 F.2d 1149 (5th Cir. 1980)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw