Law School Case Brief
Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co. - 446 U.S. 1, 100 S. Ct. 1460 (1980)
In making determinations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), once a district court finds finality, it must go on to determine whether there is any just reason for delay. Not all final judgments on individual claims should be immediately appealable, even if they are in some sense separable from the remaining unresolved claims. The function of the district court under the Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) is to act as a "dispatcher." It is 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. This discretion is to be exercised in the interest of sound judicial administration.
From 1968 to 1972, respondent General Electric Co. entered into a series of 21 contracts with petitioner Curtiss-Wright Corp. for the manufacture of components designed for use in nuclear powered naval vessels. These contracts had a total value of $ 215 million. In 1976, Curtiss-Wright brought a diversity action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking damages and reformation with regard to the contracts. The complaint asserted claims based on alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of contract by General Electric. It also sought $ 19 million from General Electric on the outstanding balance due on the contracts already performed. General Electric counterclaimed for $ 1.9 million in costs allegedly incurred as the result of "extraordinary efforts" provided to Curtiss-Wright during performance of the contracts which enabled Curtiss-Wright to avoid a contract default. General Electric also sought, by way of counterclaim, to recover $ 52 million by which Curtiss-Wright was allegedly unjustly enriched as a result of these "extraordinary efforts." The facts as to most of the claims and counterclaims were in dispute, but the sole dispute as to Curtiss-Wright's claim for the $ 19 million balance due concerned the application of a release clause in each of the contracts. The district court granted summary judgment for Curtiss-Wright for $ 19 million, plus prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 6%, notwithstanding the release clause. Curtiss-Wright then moved for a certification of that judgment as a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 (b), which provided that when more than one claim was presented in an action, whether as a claim or counterclaim, a district court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims upon an express determination that there was no just reason for delay. The court granted the motion and directed entry of final judgment for Curtiss-Wright after determining that there was "no just reason for delay". On appeal, the appellate court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting the Rule 54 (b)certification, since the possibility of a setoff required that the status quo be maintained unless Curtiss-Wright could show harsh or unusual circumstances, and no such showing had been made.
Did the district court abuse its discretion by granting the Rule 54(b) certification to Curtiss-Wright?
The Supreme Court of the United States held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Curtiss-Wright's motion for certification under Rule 54 (b). According to the Court, in deciding whether there were just reasons to delay an appeal of individual final judgments in a setting such as the instant case, a district court must take into account the interests of sound judicial administration as well as the equities involved. Hence, it was proper for the district court here to consider such factors as whether the claims under review were separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already determined was such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were subsequent appeals. The mere presence of non-frivolous counterclaims does not render a Rule 54 (b) certification inappropriate. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the proper standard against which a district court's exercise of discretion in granting a Rule 54 (b) certification was to be judged was the interest of sound judicial administration. Under this standard, although the court of appeals must scrutinize the district court's evaluation of such factors as the interrelationship of the claims so as to prevent piecemeal appeals, once such juridical concerns have been met, the district court's discretionary judgment should be given substantial deference, and the court of appeals should disturb the district court's assessment of the equities only if it can say that the district judge's conclusion was clearly unreasonable.
Access the full text case
Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class