Jackson v. Burlington Northern, Inc.

• Decision Date: 14 October 1982
• Docket Number: No. 82-181,82-181
• Parties: Alice E. JACKSON, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants, and The State of Montana, Intervenor and Respondent.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 223

652 P.2d 223

201 Mont. 123

Alice E. JACKSON, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants and The State of Montana, Intervenor and Respondent.

No. 82-181.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Oct. 14, 1982.

Gary H. Peterson, Englewood, Colo., David Woodgerd, Dept. of State Lands, Helena, Habedank, Cumming, Best & Thogersen, Otto T. Habedank, Sidney, for plaintiffs and respondents.

Thomas R. Halvorson, Sidney, for defendants and appellants.

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

HASWELL, Chief Justice.

Burlington Northern, Inc. (referred to hereafter as BN) appeals from an order of final judgment issued pursuant to Rule 54(b), M.R.Civ.P., entered in the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Richland County. Although other issues are raised, we find that the procedural issue of whether the District Court has followed the proper procedure in certifying a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), M.R.Civ.P. is dispositive of this appeal.

On July 15, 1981, BN made a motion for summary judgment. Its motion was denied by the District Court on January 11, 1982. BN thereafter moved for an order entering final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), M.R.Civ.P., on issues raised in its motion for summary judgment. In its order for final judgment dated April 16, 1982, the District Court ordered "that the Clerk of [the] Court enter a final judgment upon the order dated January 11, 1982, denying defendant Burlington Northern, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, and the undersigned expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay in the entry of final judgment on said order." The District Court did not cite any of the factors it relied upon in certifying the judgment, nor did it enter the judgment as required by Rule 58, M.R.Civ.P.

Rule 54(b), M.R.Civ.P., modeled after Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., was designed to facilitate the entry of judgments on one or more claims, or as to one or more parties in multi-claim or multi-party actions. The basic purpose of Rule 54(b) is to avoid the possible injustice of delay in entering judgment on a distinctly separate claim or as to fewer than all of the parties until final adjudication of the entire case by making an immediate appeal available. 10 Wright and Miller Federal Practice and Procedure, Sec. 2654 (1973), at 32; Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Elec. Co. (3rd Cir. 1975), 521 F.2d 360.

Rule 54(b), M.R.Civ.P., states, "When multiple claims for relief or multiple parties are involved in an action, the court may direct the entry of 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...." After reviewing the procedure followed by the District Court, we find that it did not comply with the requirements of Rule 54(b) for several reasons.

First, in its order for final judgment, the District Court denied BN's motion for summary judgment. Rule 1, M.R.App.Civ.P., which determines from what judgments or orders an appeal may be taken, does not include an order denying summary judgment as an appealable order. Indeed, "an order denying a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory order, whether made in a single claim, a multiple claims, or multiple parties action, and 54(b) does not affect that proposition." 6 Moore Federal Practice Sec. 54.40. Therefore, "the certificate is not conclusive as to the finality of the trial court's order. If the order is in...