Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3d 1263
Richard I. Brown (Patrick J. Casey with him on the brief), Lottner Rubin
Fishman Brown & Saul, P.C., Denver, CO, for Plaintiff/IntervenorAppellant.
Stanley L., Garnett (Richard P. Barkley and Annie T. Kao with him on the
brief), Brownstein Hyatt & Farber, P.C., Denver, CO, for
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellees.
Allan L. Hale, John G. Lubitz and Robert T. Hoban, Hale & Friesen, LLP,
Denver, CO, filed a brief for Plaintiff-Appellee and Third-Party
Defendant-Appellee.
Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, BALDOCK, and O'BRIEN, Circuit
Judges.
BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.
We now consider whether the district court's Rule 54(b) certification order is
sufficient to provide us with appellate jurisdiction. Because the district court's
certification order is insufficient, we dismiss AWD's appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
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.
10
In this case, the district court's certification order offers no analysis of the
factors relevant under Rule 54(b) certification and fails to comport with Rule
54(b)'s requirement that a final judgment be entered only upon an express
determination that there is no just reason for delay. Instead, the court simply
incorporated by reference AWD's arguments and conclusions. The district
court's approach does not comply with our requirement that it set forth its
reasons, albeit briefly, supporting a determination of finality and no just reason
for delay. Accordingly, we conclude the district court's certification order fails
to provide us with appellate jurisdiction over AWD's appeal.
11
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Notes:
1