Monsanto Co. v. David

NOTE: This order is nonprecedentia1. United States Court of AppeaIs for the Federal Circuit MONSANTO COMPANY AND MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC, ' Plaintiffs-Appellees, V. LOREN DAVID, Defendant-Appellant. 2012-1128 Appea1 from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in case no. 04-CV»0425, Judge Henry E. Autrey. ON MOTION Before RADER, Chief Judge. 0 R D E R Monsanto Company and Monsanto Techno1ogy LLC ("Monsant0") move to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction Loren David responds. Monsanto rep1ies. Monsanto has obtained a money judgment against David in the amount of $626,632.88. The merits of the case have been ina11y decided, and all that remains is the MONSANTO CO V. DAVID 2 process of collecting the judgment During the course of the collection proceeding, which is 0ngoing, Monsanto obtained net proceeds of $51,698.05 by executing on Mr. David’s bank accounts Monsanto also received and cashed a check dated February 18, 2011 from David for $35,000, with the notation "satisfaction of judgment in full" on the front of the check. Subsequently, Monsanto filed a motion seeking an order from the district court that the $35,000 payment, together with the $51,698.05 obtained previously, was partial satisfaction of the judgment. The district court granted this motion, entering a docket entry that states there had been "partial satifaction [sic] in the amount of $86,698.05." lt is this order that David seeks to appeal. Ordinarily, an order that resolves whether a judgment has been satisfied is a final, ` appealable decision. See generally 1513 Charles Alan Wright_& Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Civil Procedure § 3916, at 352-353 (2d ed. 1992) ("[R]ecent decisions generally allow appeal to resolve such questions as whether the judgment has been satisfied[.]"); Citizens Umlted Bcmk, N.A. v. Pearlstein, 733 F.2d 28, 29 (3rd. Cir. 1984) (jurisdiction over order denying motion to have judgment marked satisfied). Monsanto, however, contends "that collection efforts continue, and given Mr. David’s creative methods of attempting to evade the judgment it is likely that there will be further disputes before the District Court." The fact that additional collection proceedings remain does not preclude applying that general rule here. The existence of such ministerial actions by the lower court does not render a final decision non-appealable See Tweedle u. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 527 F.3d 664, 670 (8th Cir. 2008); G0oclwin u. United Stc1tes, 67 F.3d 149, 151 (2d Cir. 1995); W0osley v. Avco C0rp., 994 F.2d 313, 317 (6th Cir. 1991). 3 MONSANTO CO V. DAVID Nor do the policy reasons behind the "final judgment rule" alter that conclusion. The final judgment rule is designed to prevent against the use of piecemeal adjudication to "impede the flow of litigation, making it difficult and expensive to reach a final resolution of the issue.” Tweedle, 527 F.3d at 67O. Here, however, an immediate appeal would advance resolution of the litigation, lf David were to prevail the matter would essentially be 0ver; a1ternatively, if the district court’s order were to be affirmed all that will remain is the ministerial task of collecting the judgment. 1 Accordingly, IT ls ORDERED THAT: The motion to dismiss is denied. For The Court 02 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date J an Horbaly Clerk cc: Mark G. Arnold, Esq. F"_ED Pau1A. Sort1and, Esq. u.s. coum'0\=APP£ALsF0n 11+EFEnEenc1ncuaT 325 mv 0 2 2012 JAN HORBALY com