O'Shea et al v. Ocean Harbor Casualty Insurance Company

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOSEPH O’SHEA, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-750
OCEAN HARBOR CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant
SECTION: “E” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion for entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) filed by
Plaintiffs Joseph O’Shea and Deborah O’Shea. 1 For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’
motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On February 27, 2026, the Court granted Ocean Harbor Casualty Insurance
Company’s motion for summary judgment finding it is not liable for statutory penalties,
including attorneys’ fees, under La. R.S. 22:1892. 2
DISCUSSION
The Plaintiffs move pursuant to Rule 54(b), requesting the Court certify as a final
judgment the Court’s Order and Reasons granting summary judgment in favor of Ocean
Harbor Casualty Insurance Company. Rule 54(b) provides:
When an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether as a claim,
counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim—or when multiple parties
are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or
more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly
determines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or
other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the
1 R. Doc. 45.
2 R. Doc. 37.
Case 2:25-cv-00750-SM-EJD Document 48 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 3

2
claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end
the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time
before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties'
rights and liabilities.3
When ruling on a Rule 54(b) motion, the Court “must first determine that it is
dealing with a ‘final judgment’” meaning the order is the ultimate disposition upon a
cognizable claim for relief.4 Then, the Court must determine whether there is any just
reason for delay, weighing “the inconvenience and costs of piecemeal review on the one
hand and the danger of denying justice by delay on the other.” 5 When engaging in this
balancing, the Court should consider whether the claims in the case are “separable from
the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already
determined was such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more
than once even if there were subsequent appeals.” 6
Rule 54(b) certification is the exception, not the rule. 	The Fifth Circuit has
repeatedly 	emphasized 	that 	such 	certification 	should 	be 	granted 	only 	in 	certain
exceptional cases to avoid piecemeal appeals and conflicting rules. 7
After 	weighing 	the 	appropriate 	factors, 	the 	Court 	finds 	certification 	is
inappropriate in this case. Certifying the Court’s order as a final judgment carries a
significant risk of piecemeal review. The O’Sheas fail to convince the Court that “there
exists some danger of hardship or injustice through delay which would be alleviated by
immediate appeal.” 8 The possibility that entry of a Rule 54(b) final judgment on the
3 F ED . R. CIV . P. 54(b).
4 Williams v. Traylor-Massman-Weeks, LLC, 2011 WL 4959365, *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 18, 2011) (quoting
Curtiss–Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980)) (internal quotations omitted).
5 Rd. Sprinkler Fitters Local Union v. Cont’l Sprinkler Co., 967 F.2d 145, 148 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting
Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp., 338 U.S. 507, 511 (1950)).
6 Curtiss-Wright Corp., 466 U.S. at 8.
7 See, e.g., Eldredge v. Martin Marietta Corp., 207 F.3d 737, 740 (5th Cir. 2000).
8 PYCA Indus., Inc. v. Harrison Cty. Waste Water Mgmt. Dist., 81 F.3d 1412, 1421 (5th Cir. 1996).
Case 2:25-cv-00750-SM-EJD Document 48 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Court’s granting of Ocean Harbor Casualty Insurance Company’s summary judgment will
produce piecemeal review outweighs any potential danger of denying justice by delay.
CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that the O’Shea’s motion for entry of final judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) is DENIED.9
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 24th day of March, 2026.
________________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9 R. Doc. 45.
Case 2:25-cv-00750-SM-EJD Document 48 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 3