Maguire v. Eco Science Solutions, Inc

[5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [7] WENDY MAGUIRE, [8] NO. C18-1301RSL Plaintiff, [9] v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S [10] MOTION FOR PARTIAL ECO SCIENCE SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., JUDGMENT [11] Defendants. [13] This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Partial Final [14] Judgment” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54. Dkt. # 45.1 On August 22, 2019, the Court [15] granted in part plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding that (1) defendant Eco Science [16] 17 Solutions, Inc., (“ESSI”) and/or its wholly-owned subsidiary, Ga-Du Corporation, had breached 18 the salary provisions of plaintiff’s employment agreement and that plaintiff was entitled to [19] compensatory damages, including the promised salary of $240,000 and (2) the corporate [20] defendants - and any officer, vice principal, or agent involved in the decision - willfully withheld [21] payment of plaintiff’s accrued and unpaid salary for purposes of RCW 49.52.070, thereby [22] 23 triggering the statute’s double damages and attorney’s fee provisions. In making these findings, 24 the Court declined to decide whether plaintiff had a duty to mitigate in the circumstances [25] 26 1 The Court has considered defendants’ response. Their belated motion for a one day extension of time (Dkt. # 51) is GRANTED. [27] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 1 presented here or which officers, vice principals, or agents were involved in the decision to [2] withhold wages. Notwithstanding these open issues, plaintiff moves for entry of partial judgment [3] holding ESSI, Ga-Du-Corporation, Michael Rountree, and L. John Lewis jointly and severally [4] liable for $240,000 in wages owed, $240,000 in exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and [5] prejudgment interest. [6] 7 There are, as the above recitation shows, open issues which preclude entry of the 8 judgment plaintiff seeks. The Court declines to resolve the mitigation and individual liability [9] issues in the context of this motion. In addition, plaintiff seeks other forms of damages arising [10] from the breach of her employment agreement, specifically reserving the right to prove [11] consequential damages at trial. Dkt. # 13 at 18 n.4. Entry of partial judgment under Rule 54(b) is [12] not appropriate in these circumstances. The rule provides that “[w]hen an action presents more [13] 14 than one claim for relief . . . , the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, 15 but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just [16] reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The Supreme Court has established a framework for [17] applying this rule. The district court must first determine that it has rendered a “final judgment,” [18] meaning a judgment that is “‘an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course [19] 20 of a multiple claims action.’” Curtiss–Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980) 21 (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 436 (1956). Whether a judgment is 22 final turns, in part, on whether the claim is ready for appeal, taking into consideration the [23] judicial administrative interests in avoiding piecemeal appeals. Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 24 F.3d 873, 877-79 (9th Cir. 2005). If final judgment has been rendered on a claim, the district [25] court then determines whether there is any just reason for delay. [27] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 1 Plaintiff cannot clear the “final judgment” hurdle. Her outstanding demand for other [2] forms of damages arising from the breach of her employment contract must be resolved before [3] the breach of contract claim is finally resolved and ripe for appeal. In addition, plaintiff has [4] identified other individuals whom she believes were involved in the decision to withhold her [5] wages. Entering judgment at this stage for only some damages and against only some defendants [6] 7 would almost assuredly result in multiple appeals of the same claim. [9] For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for entry of partial judgment (Dkt. [10] # 45) is DENIED. Although defendants appear willing to accept entry of partial judgment [11] against them for the $47,010.50 in fees and costs plaintiff claimed in this motion, those fees will [12] undoubtedly go up as plaintiff litigates the mitigation, consequential damages, and individual [13] 14 liability issues. Defendants cannot forestall entry of judgment on the underlying claim while 15 cutting off the fees associated with litigating the claim to completion. [16] Defendants’ request for a one day extension in which to file their response (Dkt. # 51) is [17] GRANTED. [18] 19 Dated this 6th day of February, 2020. 20 A Robert S. Lasnik 21 United States District Judge [27] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S