Opinion
Case No. 02-10082-BC.
November 12, 2004
ORDER DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 54(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
The plaintiffs in this case have filed a complaint seeking recovery from the government of taxes withheld under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act ("FICA") with respect to certain payments received from their former employers. Thereafter, the Court certified a class of additional plaintiffs beyond the three named plaintiffs pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 23. The plaintiffs and the defendant both moved for summary judgment with respect to the claims made by the three named plaintiffs. In an opinion dated August 2, 2004, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and denied the defendant's motion.
In its August 2, 2004 opinion, the Court requested the parties to submit an agreed form of judgment. The defendant has informed the Court that it objects to any final judgment that does not include the amount of each overpayment for each plaintiff, including each of the hundreds of plaintiffs who meet the requirements of the class definition. The defendant has made known its intention to appeal the Court's decision on liability, and the parties acknowledge that additional time and expense will be required to identify each class member along with the amount of each overpayment. The defendant, however, agrees to a judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that resolves the claims of only the three named plaintiffs and leaves unadjudicated the amounts of the overpayments for the unnamed plaintiffs so that the court of appeals can take jurisdiction of the case. The plaintiffs have also agreed to a Rule 54(b) judgment.
The Sixth Circuit has identified factors that it considers relevant in determining whether a Rule 54(b) certification has been properly made: (1) the relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims; (2) the possibility that the need for further review might or might not be mooted by future developments; (3) the possibility that the reviewing court might be obliged to consider the same issue a second time; (4) the presence or absence of a claim or counterclaim which could result in set-off against the judgment sought to be made final; and (5) miscellaneous factors such as delay, economic and solvency considerations, shortening the time of trial, and frivolity of competing claims. Solomon v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 782 F.2d 58, 61 (6th Cir. 1986).
After considering the parties' submissions, the Court finds that there is no just reason for any further delay in the entry of judgment with respect to the three named plaintiffs, and will therefore direct the entry of a final judgment with respect to their claims. Counsel for both the defendant and the plaintiffs have informed the Court that determining the amount of each overpayment for each plaintiff is a task that will consume substantial time and resources of both the government's employees and plaintiffs' counsel. The Court finds that determining the precise amount of the overpayment for several hundred plaintiffs is a process that might take months to complete and consume significant amounts of the parties' resources. The Court believes that this expense should not be incurred until the parties have had the opportunity to obtain further review of the issues presented.
Further, the Court has been informed there is now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit an appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan that raises similar issues. See Appoloni v. United States, Docket No. 04-2068, 04-2119. The Court finds that judicial economy is served by having the present case proceed to the Sixth Circuit, where it would likely be considered along with the Appoloni case. Finally, since the overpayment issue is identical for the three named plaintiffs and the additional members of the class in this action and the plaintiffs in Appoloni, it is unlikely that the Sixth Circuit will have to later adjudicate the FICA issue with respect to the unnamed plaintiffs in this action.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that judgement will be entered in this case pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in favor of the three named plaintiffs.