When a civil action involves multiple claims and multiple parties, a judgment regarding any claim or any party does not become final until the entry of the last judgment that resolves all claims as to all parties.35 At common law, judgment completing the action as to fewer than all the claims or all the parties was not considered a final judgment as to those completed claims.36 Now, by rule, a court can enter final judgment as to fewer than all of the claims or all of the parties where (i) the action involves multiple claims or parties; (ii) at least one claim or the rights and liabilities of at least one party has finally been decided; and (iii) there is no just reason for delaying entry of final judgment as to that claim or party.37
The fact that a judgment meets the requirements of the court rule does not of itself make an order involving fewer than all of the claims or all of the parties a final judgment.38 A party must first apply to the court. The decision whether or not to enter final judgment in accordance with the rule is within the discretion of the court.39 In exercising that discretion, the trial judge should take into account judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved. Judicial administrative interests include the traditional policy against piecemeal appeals and the possibility that future developments may moot any need for judicial review of the claims.40 In reviewing the equities, the court should consider whether the movant has shown some degree of hardship or injustice through delay which would be alleviated by an immediate appeal.41 If the court determines that the judgment should be made final, the judgment should recite the court’s determination that there is no just cause for delay.
35. Harrison v. Ramunno, 730 A.2d 653 (Del. 1999).
36. Lightburn v. Delaware Power & Light Co., 158 A.2d 919, 922 (Del. 1960).
37. Ch. Ct. R. 54(b); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 54(b); Comm. Pls. Ct. Civ. R. 54(b); Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 54(b); In re Tri-Star Pictures, Inc., Litigation, CA. No. 9477, slip op. at 3, Jacobs, V.C. (Del. Ch. Sept. 26, 1989); Patton v. Simone, C.A. Nos. 90C-JA-29 & 90C-JL-219, slip op. at 3, Herlihy, J. (Del. Super. Aug. 27, 1992).
38. Ch. Ct. R. 54(b); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 54(b); Comm. Pls. Ct. Civ. R. 54(b); Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 54(b): Lightburn v. Delaware Power & Light Co., 158 A.2d 919, 922 (Del. 1960).
39. Hercules, Inc. v. Leu Trust & Banking, Ltd., 611 A.2d 476, 485 (Del. 1992), cert. dismissed, 507 U.S. 1025 (1993).
40. Zimmerman v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., C.A. Nos. 10911 & 10919, slip op. at 3, Jacobs, V.C. (Del. Ch. Oct. 25, 1990),. app. refused mem., 592 A.2d 935 (Del. 1990); In re Tri-Star Pictures, Inc., Litigation, C.A. No. 9477, slip op. at 3, Jacobs, V.C. (Del. Ch. Sept. 26, 1989); Patton v. Simone, C.A. Nos. 90C-JA-29 & 90C-JL-219, slip op. at 3, Herlihy, J. (Del. Super. Aug. 27, 1992); Sequa Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., C.A. No. 89C-AP-1, slip op. at 2-3, Herlihy, J. (Del. Super. Aug. 7, 1992).
41. Zimmerman v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., C.A. Nos. 10911 & 10919, slip op. at 3, Jacobs, V.C. (Del. Ch. Oct. 25, 1990), app. refused mem., 592 A.2d 935 (Del. 1990); In re Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. Litigation, C.A. No.9477, slip op. at 4, Jacobs, V.C. (Del Ch. Sept. 26, 1989).
© 2010 David L. Finger