Attempting to collect damages before a final judgment has been entered is not only improper under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 69, but it is an unnecessary waste of time and money.[1] Recently, we defeated opposing counsel’s attempts to collect “post-judgment” relief, “post-judgment” injunctive relief, and “post-judgment” discovery for one simple reason: opposing counsel had only obtained a jury verdict, not a final judgment. A rare exception to the requirement to receive a final judgment before collecting damages would be a partial judgment in a bifurcated case under 54(b); however, parties seldom meet the required criteria to receive a partial judgment. Although it is clear from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, centuries old case law, and public policy that a final judgment triggers a party’s ability to obtain post-judgment relief, attorneys mistakenly spend time and money litigating this settled issue.
One hundred and twenty years ago, the United States Supreme Court explained the elementary concept that “the thing adjudged must be by a judgment. A verdict or finding of the court alone is not sufficient.” [2] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 69 confirms this, providing that “[i]n aid of the judgment or execution,” judgment discovery may issue.[3] Thus, a final judgment, not a jury verdict, is necessary before Rule 69 is triggered.[4] By attempting to conduct post-judgment discovery before a final judgment has been entered, counsel would be ignoring the clear language of Rule 69 and century-old precedent.[5]
There are several pragmatic reasons why a final judgment is the triggering event to collect damages. After a jury verdict has been entered, the judge has the discretion to modify the verdict, and the parties have the right to appeal. Moreover, the presence of bifurcated claims can delay the entry of a final judgment even when there is a jury verdict entered on some claims. It is possible for a party to recover damages under a bifurcated claim before all the other claims are heard, but the essential principle still stands: you need a final judgment on those bifurcated claims.
Parties may attempt to recover from a jury verdict win on a bifurcated claim by obtaining a Rule 54(b) partial judgment. Rule 54(b) allows for entry of a final judgment on “fewer than all[] claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.”[6] Under Rule 54(b), “entry of judgment under the rule should not be indulged as a matter of routine” because “there is a long-settled and prudential policy against the scattershot disposition of litigation.”[7]
Courts have identified tests to determine whether Rule 54(b) judgments are appropriate. For example, the First Circuit, where this case was brought, uses “a two-step approach.”[8] The first is “the ruling underlying the proposed judgment must itself be final in the sense that it disposes completely either of all claims against a given defendant or of some discrete substantive claim or set of claims against the defendants generally.”[9] But the second step of determining whether “there is no just reason for delay” in entering judgment is given meaning by analyzing several factors:
(1) the relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims; (2) the possibility that the need for review might or might not be mooted by future developments in the district court; (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, frivolity of competing claims, expense, and the like.[10]
Given the burden to prove that there is “no just reason for delay,” a jury verdict alone is not enough to satisfy the requirements needed for a Rule 54(b) partial judgment.[11]
An eager attempt to recover damages is common amongst any party who has received a jury verdict in their favor. While the desire for a quick resolution to your client’s claims and recovery of their damage award is commendable and understandable, it is imperative that counsel understands that a jury verdict alone is not enough. Enjoy your win on the jury verdict, but do not pop the champagne until you have received a final judgment.
If you have been sued or are looking to start a lawsuit, please contact the experienced litigators at Eckland & Blando LLP.
[1] Research and drafting assistance provided by Miranda Sharp, law clerk at Eckland & Blando LLP.
[2] Oklahoma City v. McMaster, 196 U.S. 529, 533 (1905).
[3] Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2) (emphasis added).
[4] Sierrapine v. Refiner Products Mfg., Inc., 275 F.R.D. 604, 609 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (collecting cases); Sanderson v. Winner, 507 F.2d 477, 480 (10th Cir. 1974), cert denied 421 U.S. 914 (“Defendant will have ample opportunity for discovery under Rule 69 F.R.Civ.P. if it obtains judgment.”) (emphasis added); FTC v. Turner, 609 F.2d 743, 745 (5th Cir. 1980) (stating that there is generally no right to discovery of assets until a judgment has been obtained); United States v. Varnado, 447 Fed.Appx. 48, 50 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (unpublished) (holding that for Rule 69 “to apply a ‘money judgment’ must exist”) (citing Ziino v. Baker, 613 F.3d 1326, 1328 (11th Cir.2010))); Fox v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, 602 F. App’x 449, 451–52 (10th Cir. 2015) (“These provisions [of Rule 69] clearly contemplate the existence of a money judgment, without which there is no right to discovery.”); Metro. Prop. & Cas. INS. Co. v. Advanced Spine Centers, Inc., No. CV 1:07-CV-10746-RCL, 2009 WL 10692662, at *8 (D. Mass. Jan. 30, 2009) (“There is no right to the discovery of assets until after a judgment is levied and this Court finds that the commencement of an “assert search” at this juncture is not proper.”).
[5] Rivera-Torres v. Ortiz Velez, 341 F.3d 86, 89 (1st Cir. 2003) (“With several alterations, the court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict, and the defendants filed these timely appeals.”).
[6] Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
[7] Spiegel v. Trs. of Tufts Coll., 843 F.2d 38, 42 (1st Cir. 1988).
[8] Cox v. City of Bos., No. 22-cv-11009-RGS, 2024 WL 5159696, at *1 (D. Mass. Dec. 18, 2024).
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at *2 (citing Spiegel, 843 F.2d at 43 n.3 (1st Cir. 1988); Allis–Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 521 F.2d 360, 364 (3d Cir. 1975)).
[11] There have been at least two cases where courts in the First Circuit have relaxed the requirements to receive a partial judgment in order to hear an appeal immediately in the interest of justice. Quinn v. City of Boston, 325 F.3d 18, 26–27 (1st Cir.2003) (holding if bifurcated claims are entirely unrelated then a Rule 54(b) finding is not specifically required); Feinstein v. Resolution Trust Corp., 942 F.2d 34, 39–40 (1st Cir.1991).