Vasquez v. Ferre, Civ. No. 2023-72.

• Decision Date: 08 April 1976
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 2023-72.
• Parties: David VAZQUEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Asociacion de Trabajadores Agricolas de Puerto Rico et al., Intervenors, v. Luis A. FERRE, Individually and in his capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and his successor in office, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

410 F. Supp. 1385

David VAZQUEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Asociacion de Trabajadores Agricolas de Puerto Rico et al., Intervenors, v. Luis A. FERRE, Individually and in his capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and his successor in office, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 2023-72.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

April 8, 1976.

Herbert Teitelbaum, Manuel Del Valle, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., New York City, Michael S. Berger, Camden Regional Legal Services, Inc., Bridgeton, N. J., for plaintiffs.

David M. Sheehan, Amherst, Mass., D. Ellen Stimler, Moorestown, N. J., for intervenors.

I. Leo Motiuk, Deputy Atty. Gen. for the State of New Jersey, Trenton, N. J., for defendants Heymann and the New Jersey Dept. of Labor and Industry.

Norman L. Cantor, Newark, N. J., George A. Davidson, Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, New York City, for defendants Ferre, Rivera de Vincenti, Lugo, their successors in office, and the Dept. of Labor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

OPINION

COHEN, Senior District Judge:

Plaintiffs and intervenors have filed a motion, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), seeking the entry of final judgment as to certain claims adjudicated by this court in its decision of November 19, 1975, 404 F.Supp. 815. That opinion, which contains a recitation of the facts, granted partial summary judgment to the commonwealth defendants. Plaintiffs have submitted an order certifying that there is no just reason for delay and directing the entry of final judgment as to so much of the court's opinion which: (1) determined the commonwealth defendants' duties under the Wagner-Peyser Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 49 et seq.; (2) dismissed the complaint against the Department of Labor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; (3) declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the claims based upon violation of Puerto Rican law. For the reasons discussed below the motion will be denied.

Since fewer than all the claims in this action were adjudicated on summary judgment, the resulting order will be appealable as a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 only if it includes an express direction for the entry of final judgment as to those claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 96 S.Ct. 1202, 1205, 47 L.Ed.2d 435, 436, 44 LW 4350, 4352 (1976). Rule 54(b) reads as follows:

(b) Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. 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 the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stated in Panichella v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 252 F.2d 452 (3d Cir. 1958), that:

54(b) orders should not be entered routinely or as a courtesy or accommodation to counsel. The power which this Rule confers upon the trial judge should be used only "in the infrequent harsh case" as an instrument for the improved administration of justice and the more satisfactory disposition of litigation in the light of the public policy indicated by statute and rule.

Id. at 455. Recently, in Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 521 F.2d 360 (3d Cir. 1975), the court reiterated the "over-all policy against piecemeal...