Filed: Sep. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 27, 2017
Summary: RULE 54(b) JUDGMENT TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN , District Judge . On August 31, 2017, the Court entered an Order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Edward R. Ginn, III, ERG Enterprises, LP, Lubert-Adler Management Company, LP, and Dean Adler as to both counts of the Fourth Amended Master Complaint. (Doc. 581). By Order of this same date, the Court granted the parties' request that the Court enter a Rule 54(b) judgment in the main action. (Doc. 584). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDER
Summary: RULE 54(b) JUDGMENT TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN , District Judge . On August 31, 2017, the Court entered an Order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Edward R. Ginn, III, ERG Enterprises, LP, Lubert-Adler Management Company, LP, and Dean Adler as to both counts of the Fourth Amended Master Complaint. (Doc. 581). By Order of this same date, the Court granted the parties' request that the Court enter a Rule 54(b) judgment in the main action. (Doc. 584). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERE..
More
RULE 54(b) JUDGMENT
TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge.
On August 31, 2017, the Court entered an Order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Edward R. Ginn, III, ERG Enterprises, LP, Lubert-Adler Management Company, LP, and Dean Adler as to both counts of the Fourth Amended Master Complaint. (Doc. 581). By Order of this same date, the Court granted the parties' request that the Court enter a Rule 54(b) judgment in the main action. (Doc. 584).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Pursuant to Rule 54(b), finding that there is no just reason to delay the entry of final judgment on these claims,1 the Court hereby enters JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants Edward R. Ginn, III, ERG Enterprises, LP, Lubert-Adler Management Company, LP, and Dean Adler and against Plaintiffs as to both counts of the Fourth Amended Master Complaint.
DONE AND ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Because the Court has disposed of all claims in the main action, the Court finds that the balance of judicial administrative interests and the relevant equitable concerns weigh in favor of Rule 54(b) certification. See Ebrahimi v. City of Huntsville Bd. of Educ., 114 F.3d 162, 166 (11th Cir. 1997).
