SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.
This is a consolidated multi-district litigation ("MDL") relating to contamination — actual or threatened — of groundwater from various defendants' use of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether ("MTBE") and/or tertiary butyl alcohol ("TBA"), a product formed by the breakdown of MTBE in water. In this case, plaintiff Orange County Water District ("OCWD"), which is charged with maintaining groundwater quality, alleges that defendants' use and handling of MTBE has contaminated, or threatens to contaminate groundwater within its jurisdiction. Familiarity with the underlying facts is presumed for the purposes of this Order.
Defendants Atlantic Richfield Company, Inc., BP West Coast Products LLC, BP Products North America Inc. (the "BP Defendants"), Equilon Enterprises LLC, Shell Oil Company, Inc., and Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. (the "Shell Defendants") (together, the "Judgment Defendants") request that this Court enter final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). For the reasons stated below, that request is GRANTED.
In 1999, the Orange County District Attorney ("OCDA") sued the BP Defendants, alleging that they were responsible for the release of MTBE into Orange County soil and groundwater and requesting "equitable relief, damages, and penalties."
In 2003, the OCWD filed suit against the BP Defendants, Shell Defendants, and various other oil and gas companies for MTBE and TBA contamination.
Despite this Court's holding that res judicata barred the claims against the BP and Shell Defendants, the OCWD moved to include them in this Court's Suggestion to Remand for certain focus plume sites on the theory that res judicata did not bar claims for continuing nuisance.
On September 29, 2015, this Court entered a Suggestion to Remand to the United States District Court for the Central District of California for trial at sixteen focus plume sites.
Rule 54(b) provides that:
In order to reach the conclusion that a final judgment under Rule 54(b) is appropriate, a court must determine that three requirements are satisfied: "(1) there are multiple claims or parties; (2) at least one claim or the rights and liabilities of at least one party has been finally determined; and (3) the court makes an `express [ ] determin[ation] that there is no just reason for delay.'"
As to the third determination, "[i]t is left to the sound judicial discretion of the district court to determine the `appropriate time' when each final decision in a multiple claims action is ready for appeal."
There is no serious dispute that the first two requirements of Rule 54(b) are satisfied.
Finally, this Court is convinced that there is "no just reason for delay." The Second Circuit has made clear that the "increased complexity of litigation" "cr[ies] out for flexibility in granting partial final judgments under rule 54(b)."
Sound judicial administration and the equities of this particular case strongly militate in favor of a 54(b) final judgment. The cases in the MTBE MDL are unusually complex, involving numerous defendants and alleged contamination sites. This case is no exception.
Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate where immediate appellate review "might avoid a duplicative trial should the decision . . . dismissing the [] claims be reversed."
This complexity and potential duplication of proceedings are precisely why the Second Circuit has concluded that "sound judicial administration must involve a proper regard for the duties of both the district court and the appellate court."
The Non-Judgment Defendants' claims of prejudice are either nonexistent or overblown. The Judgment Defendants claims were resolved on res judicata grounds — grounds that are unique to those defendants because of their involvement in the OCDA litigation. In the event that the Second Circuit finds in the Judgment Defendants' favor on this unique and separable ground, the Non-Judgment Defendants face no possibility of prejudice.
Even assuming that alternative grounds are implicated, the Non-Judgment Defendants only generally argue that "critical, case-wide matters" could be decided without specifying anything more.
The risk of prejudice to the Non-Judgment Defendants in allowing these two issues to be appealed now is minimal. The Judgment and Non-Judgment Defendants have similar if not identical interests on these issues, and, in any event, the parties will consent
Entry of final judgment would benefit all parties by reducing litigation costs and preventing possible duplicative trials. The res judicata decisions, which are the focus of the appeal, are discrete and separable issues that are appropriately decided by the circuit court on a 54(b) certification. Finally, to the extent other issues are raised on appeal, the prejudice to the Non-Judgment Defendants would be small and certainly does not justify the harm that both the OCWD and Judgment Defendants would face by having to wait — potentially years — for a full appeal to be heard.
For the aforementioned reasons, the request for a 54(b) final judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter final judgment for Atlantic Richfield Company, Inc., BP West Coast Products LLC, BP Products North America Inc., Equilon Enterprises LLC, Shell Oil Company, Inc., and Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc.
SO ORDERED.