United States District Court, S.D. New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs LIDDLE & ROBINSON, LLP Blaine H.
Bortnick, Esq., James W. Halter, Esq., Read K. McCaffrey,
Esq., Atoosa Esmaili, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP Marshall H.
Fishman, Esq. Samuel J. Rubin, Esq.
W. SWEET, U.S. D.J.
Eduardo Negrete and Gervasio Negrete (collectively, the
"Negretes" or the "Plaintiffs") have
moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) to
certify the Court's February 27, 2017, dismissal of
Counts I, II, IV, V, and part of Count III as a partial final
judgment. As set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion is
factual background and prior proceedings of this matter have
been set forth in previous opinions by this Court. See
Negrete v. Citibank, N.A., 187 F.Supp.3d 454, 459-61
(S.D.N.Y. 2016); Negrete v. Citibank, N.A., No. 15
Civ. 7250 (RWS), 2017 WL 758516, at *1-5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27,
2017). Familiarity is assumed. The following summary retells
portions of prior proceedings as relevant to the instant
September 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against
Defendant Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank" or the
"Defendant"), (Dkt. 1), which was dismissed in its
entirety on May 19, 2016, with leave to replead, (Dkt. 49).
On June 20, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.
February 27, 2017, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint was
dismissed in its entirety except for part of Count III,
Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim over "any
claims [concerning] unexecuted or partially executed [trades]
for which Plaintiffs can prove they covered at a worse price
and suffered actual damages." (Dkt. 75 at 32-33.)
March 21, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion, (Dkt.
77), which was heard and marked fully submitted on April 19,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides:
When an action presents more than one claim for
relief-whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or
third-party claim-or when multiple parties are involved, the
court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more,
but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court
expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.
Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated,
that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and
liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the
action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised
at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all
the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 54(b) may therefore be exercised where
there are (1) multiple claims or multiple parties be present,
(2) at least one claim, or the rights and liabilities of at
least one party, finally decided within the meaning of 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and (3) the district court makes an
express determination that there is no just reason for delay.
See Ginett v. Computer Task Grp., Inc., 962 F.2d
1085, 1091 (2d Cir. 1992).
is a permissive, not mandatory, mechanism to be
"exercised in the interest of sound judicial
administration." Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec.
Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980) (citations omitted). It is
therefore "left to the sound judicial discretion of the
district court to determine the 'appropriate time'
when each final decision in a multiple claims action is ready
for appeal." Id. (citations omitted).
"[T]he power to certify a judgment as final should be
'exercised sparingly, ' and, 'only if there are
interests of sound judicial administration and efficiency to
be served, or in the infrequent harsh case where there exists
some danger of hardship or injustice through delay which
would be alleviated by immediate appeal.'" HSW
Enters., Inc. v. Woo Lae Oak, Inc., No. 08 Civ. 8476
(LBS), 2010 WL 1630686, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2010)
(quoting Harriscom Svenska AB v. Harris Corp., 947
F.2d 627, 629 (2d Cir. 1991)). A court ...