Case Activity (340)

1. Order | Filed: July 13, 2026 | Entered: July 13, 2026 BBAM Aircraft Management LP v. Babcock & Brown LLC et al

   Trademark | Connecticut

   Order on Motion for Judgment under Rule 54(b)

   ORDER denying 317 Motion for Entry of Judgment Under Rule 54(b). Defendants ask the court to enter partial judgment in this case, specifically as to the order of March 31, 2026, which dismissed a counterclaim Defendants brought under California's law against unfair competition. See ECF No. 310 . Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) allows a court to "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." However, "[i]n view of the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals,' such a certification should not be granted routinely." Ruffolo v. Oppenheimer & Co., 949 F.2d 33, 36 (2d Cir. 1991) (quoting CurtissWright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980)) (internal citation omitted). To the contrary, a district court should enter partial judgment "only if there are 'interest[s] of sound judicial administration' and efficiency to be served," Harriscom Svenska AB v. Harris Corp., 947 F.2d 627, 629 (2d Cir. 1991) (quoting CurtissWright, 446 U.S. at 8), or where there is "some danger of hardship or injustice through delay which would be alleviated by immediate appeal, Ruffolo, 949 F.2d at 36 (quoting Cullen v. Margiotta, 618 F.2d 226, 228 (2d Cir.1980)).
   
   The court finds that no hardship or injustice will inure to Defendants if this motion is not granted, and that no efficiency is to be derived if the motion is granted. Defendants argue that certification is appropriate because (1) the remaining claims in this action will likely take years to resolve, which will long delay any relief they may be due on their counterclaim, and (2) the Second Circuit recently has issued a relevant ruling, so it makes sense to present these issues now. The latter argument easily is rejected. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will be well able to address Defendants' questions of law at any time. There is no danger of the appellate court (whether or not the exact same panel happens to be assigned to any appeal from this case as was assigned to the cited decision) being disadvantaged by the timing of any appeal from this action. And as to the former argument, the court finds any contention as to the likely duration of litigation of the remaining claims in this action to be entirely speculative. Similarly, it is unknown when the Second Circuit might turn to any appeal of Defendants' counterclaim, and the court is disinclined to risk delay to the instant action by introducing parallel litigation that likely would distract the parties from diligent prosecution of the remaining claims. The court also is persuaded by Plaintiffs' point that Defendants might have brought their counterclaim in a separate action, where a dismissal would be immediately appealable, but chose not to. This outcome was a foreseeable consequence of that choice.
   
   Accordingly, for these reasons, the court finds that entry of partial judgment is inappropriate in this case, and the motion therefore is denied. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 7/13/26. (RW)

2. Order | Filed: July 08, 2026 | Entered: July 08, 2026 BBAM Aircraft Management LP v. Babcock & Brown LLC et al

   Trademark | Connecticut

   Scheduling Order

   SCHEDULING ORDER:
   Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 7/8/26.(rw)

3. 338 additional result(s)