Touchet v. United Specialty Insurance Company et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHARLES TOUCHET 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 24-1020
UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, ET AL.
SECTION “R” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is an unopposed motion from defendants Alive Free
Transportation, LLC and Dorgelys Manzano Borrell for an entry of judgment
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a) and to certify the Court’s order granting summary
judgment as final under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 1 The Court denies the motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On May 16, 2023, Dorgelys Borrell was driving a tractor-trailer in the
right lane northbound on I-59 in the scope of his employment with Alive Free
Transportation, LLC (Alive Free). 2 	Behind Borrell, Charles Touchet was
driving a sweeper truck in the right lane northbound on I-59 in the scope of
his employment for BJs Service Group, Inc. (BJs). 3 	Touchet saw Borrell’s
tractor-trailer half a mile ahead of him with its hazard lights on. 4 There were
1 	R. Doc. 83.
2 	R. Doc. 51-5, at 6.
3 	Id.
4 	R. Doc. 46-2, at 85.
Case 2:24-cv-01020-SSV-DPC Document 86 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 5

2
no vehicles between them. 5 Touchet looked away, and when he looked back,
he had caught up to Borrell’s truck, which had slowed. 6 	Borrell was pulling
to the side of the interstate to check his load of steel pipes, which he believed
had come loose.7 	Touchet then tried to move into the left lane and clipped
Borrell’s tractor-trailer in the process. 8 Touchet was injured.
Touchet sued Borrell, Alive Free, and United Specialty Insurance
Company. 9 Borrell and Alive Free jointly moved for summary judgment for
the dismissal of Touchet’s lawsuit. 10 	The Court granted the motion for
summary judgment. 	Borrell and Alive Free now seek a certification of the
Court’s order granting summary judgment as final under Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b).
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) permits the Court to direct entry
of a “final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties if
the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(b); see also Williams v. Seidenbach, 958 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir.
5 	Id. at 83.
6 	R. Doc. 55-1, at 8.
7 	R. Doc. 51-7, at 16.
8 	R. Doc. 55-1, at 10.
9 	R. Doc. 1.
10 	R. Doc. 46.
Case 2:24-cv-01020-SSV-DPC Document 86 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 5

3
2020). “One of the primary policies behind requiring a justification for Rule
54(b) certification is to avoid piecemeal appeals.” PYCA Indus. v. Harrison
Cty. Waste Water Mgmt. Dist., 81 F.3d 1412, 1421 (5th Cir. 1996). Rule 54(b)
judgments are not favored and should be awarded only when necessary to
avoid “hardship or injustice through delay,” and “should not be entered
routinely as a courtesy to counsel.” Id.
The first inquiry the Court must make is whether it is dealing with a
“final judgment.” 	Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7
(1980). 	It must be a “judgment” in the sense that it is a decision upon a
cognizable claim for relief, and it must be “final” in the sense that it is “an
ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple
claims action.” 	Id. 	Next, the Court must determine if there is any “just
reason for delay,” a determination that is within the sound discretion of the
district court. 	See Ackerman v. FDIC, 973 F.2d 1221, 1224 (5th Cir. 1992).
In 	making 	this 	determination, 	the 	district 	court 	must 	weigh 	“the
inconvenience and costs of piecemeal review on the one hand and the danger
of denying justice by delay on the other.” Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union
v. Continental Sprinkler Co., 967 F.2d 145, 148 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting
Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp., 338 U.S. 507, 511 (1950)). 	A
major factor the district court should consider is whether the appellate court
Case 2:24-cv-01020-SSV-DPC Document 86 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 5

4
“would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were
subsequent appeals.” 	H & W Indus., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA,
860 F.2d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 1988) (quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp., 446 U.S. at
8).
III. 	DISCUSSION
As to the first requirement for Rule 54(b) certification, the Court finds
that the dismissal of all of Touchet’s claims against Alive Free and Borrell
with prejudice is “an ultimate disposition” of those claims and meets the
final-judgment test. 	Portillo v. Cunningham, 872 F.3d 728, 736 (5th Cir.
2017) (“A dismissal with prejudice is an adjudication on the merits.”)
As to the second requirement, after weighing the appropriate factors,
the Court finds that certification is not appropriate here. 	Before the Court
can certify a judgment for appeal under Rule 54(b), the Court must find that
the appropriate factors combine to “outweigh the important concerns that
underlie ‘the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals.’” Briargrove
Shopping Ctr. Joint Venture v. Pilgrim Enters., Inc., 170 F.3d 536, 540 (5th
Cir. 1999) (quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp., 446 U.S. at 8).
Here, the defendant requests a 54(b) certification so that the running
of appellate delays may begin. 11 	This reason cannot outweigh the concern
11 	R. Doc. 83-1.
Case 2:24-cv-01020-SSV-DPC Document 86 Filed 02/19/26 Page 4 of 5

5
about piecemeal appeals. See Kirtland v. McDermott & Co., 568 F.2d 1166,
1171 (5th Cir. 1978) (noting that “Rule 54(b) orders should not be entered
routinely or as a courtesy or accommodation to counsel [and] should be used
only in the ‘infrequent harsh case’”) (quoting Panichella v. Pa. R. Co., 252
F.2d 452, 455 (3d Cir. 1958)). Touchet’s claims against Borrell and Alive Free
are 	nearly 	identical 	to 	his 	claims 	against 	United 	Specialty 	Insurance
Company, the lone remaining defendant. Touchet’s claims against all three
defendants are not separable. The inconvenience and costs of possible
piecemeal review in this case thus outweigh the defendant’s request for the
courtesy of an entry of final judgment.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion for
entry of a final judgment.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 19th day of February, 2026.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-01020-SSV-DPC Document 86 Filed 02/19/26 Page 5 of 5