Opinion
01 C 50137
July 25, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Gruner AG, filed a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) for a finding of no just reason for delay and an entry of judgment on the court's April 15, 2002 order granting the motion of defendants, KG Components, Inc. and Klaus Gruner, to dismiss counts I and II of plaintiffs complaint for improper venue based on a forum selection clause making a German court the appropriate forum. Gruner AG v. KG Components, Inc., No. 01 C 50137, 2002 WL 596360 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 15, 2002) (Reinhard, J.). Rule 54(b) entries are not to be made routinely or without due deliberation. See United States Gen., Inc. v. Albert, 792 F.2d 678, 680 (7th Cir. 1986) The court is generally required to specifically state the reasons an immediate appeal is necessary. Id. at 681. The motion is addressed to the court's discretion. See Id. There is a strong policy against piecemeal appeals. See Freeman v. Kohl Vick Machine Works, Inc., 673 F.2d 196, 201 (7th Cir. 1982).
Plaintiff's argument is essentially that a piecemeal appeal may ultimately reduce piecemeal litigation. A reversal on appeal would reinstate counts I and II in this court reducing from three to two the courts in which disputes between these parties would be pending. of course, to achieve this reduction, the parties would have to brief and argue a case at the court of appeals, with all of the expense and delay that attends an appeal, and plaintiff would have to prevail. Plaintiffs alternatives are to proceed in the German court or to await final resolution of the remaining matters before this court and appeal the enforcement of the forum selection clause at that time. The court does not see anything in plaintiffs argument that indicates an immediate appeal is necessary. While an immediate appeal, if successful, would get the plaintiff what it seeks (a return of counts I and II to this court) the burden of an immediate appeal on defendants and the court of appeals would be significant in terms of time and expense. This is not a case where plaintiff has a monetary award it seeks to enforce and where delaying appeal would cause it a severe daily financial loss from non-payment. E.g. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 6 (1980). Plaintiff has not advanced any significant hardship that overcomes the strong policy against piecemeal appeals. See Freeman, 673 F.2d at 201. Any benefit to plaintiff is offset by the extra burden a piecemeal appeal places on defendants.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for a Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) finding is denied.