Opinion
Civil Action No. 00-2380-CM
January 24, 2003.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the court is plaintiffs' Rule 58(d) Motion for Entry of Judgment (Doc. 510). As set forth below, plaintiffs' motion is denied.
• Background
On June 18, 2002, the court issued a Memorandum and Order which granted defendants De Bruce Grain, Inc., General Mills, Michelle Seiberlich, Southern Illinois Railcar LLC (SIRC LLC), Fred L. Parsons, Kurt E. Johnson, and Gary J. Goodman (hereinafter "the remaining defendants")'s motions to dismiss. Caldwell-Baker Co. v. S. Ill. Railcar Co., No. 00-2380, 2002 WL 1467588 (June 18, 2002) (hereinafter "the June 18 order"). The court also found that defendant Southern Illinois Railcar Co. (SIRC)'s previous filing of bankruptcy operated as an automatic stay of the continuation of judicial action against it. Id. at n. 2 (citing 11 U.S.C. § 362). The court therefore denied as moot and without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment against defendant SIRC, and permitted the motion to be reasserted if and when the bankruptcy court permitted plaintiffs to pursue their claims against defendant SIRC. Id. On October 4, 2002, the court issued an order (Doc. 507) denying plaintiffs' motion to Certify Order in Multiple Party Case (Doc. 493) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). In that motion, plaintiffs requested the court to amend its June 18 order to direct the clerk to enter final judgment against the remaining defendants, so that plaintiffs could appeal as to those defendants. The court denied plaintiffs' motion on the grounds that the June 18 order was not an appealable final judgment because it adjudicated fewer than all of the claims brought in the action.
• Analysis
Plaintiffs request the court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(d), to enter judgment on a separate document pertaining to the remaining defendants. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(d) provides that a party may request that judgment be set forth on a separate document as required by Rule 58(a)(1). Rule 58(a)(1) states, in relevant part, that "[e]very judgment and amended judgment must be set forth on a separate document." Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(a)(1).
In their motion, plaintiffs fail to provide any legal support or argument for their request. The court already has denied plaintiffs' request to direct the entry of a final judgment as to the remaining defendants. Because the court has not directed that final judgment be entered in this case, the court finds that plaintiffs' request that a judgment be set forth on a separate document is premature. Plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment is denied. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs' Rule 58(d) Motion for Entry of Judgment (Doc. 510) is denied.
Plaintiff filed the instant motion on November 21, 2002. On December 1, 2002, amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54 and 58 became effective. The court notes that the amendments have not affected the outcome of the court's consideration of plaintiff's motion.