NANETTE K. LAUGHREY, United States District Judge.
Pending before the Court are (1) Defendant United States' Motion for a New Trial Against Carolyn Sue Gourd (Doc. # 84) and (2) Defendant United States' Motion for Entry of Judgment Against Todd R. Hohenstreet (Doc. # 85). For the reasons stated below, both Motions will be granted.
I. New Trial
On April 26, 1999, Gourd filed this action seeking a refund of a payment that she made in connection with an Internal Revenue System trust fund tax assessment against her. On July 23, 2000, the Government answered Gourd's Complaint and filed counterclaims against her for the outstanding balance of the trust fund taxes owed by Custom Information Services, Inc. ("CIS") for the period from July 1, 1996 to June 30, 1997. The Government later amended its answer and added a counterclaim against Todd R. Hohenstreet. On December 14, 2000, the case went to trial by jury and on December 18, 2000, the jury returned a judgment against Counterclaim Defendant Hohenstreet, but was unable to reach a verdict with regard to Gourd.
The Court has interpreted the United States' Motion for a New Trial as a request for a trial setting. Because the jury did not reach a verdict with respect to Gourd's claim against the United States or the United States' counterclaim against Gourd, the Court will grant the United States' Motion for a New Trial Against Carolyn Sue Gourd. The Court finds that it is against the interests of justice to permit these claims to remain unresolved. Accordingly, a trial will be held on the remaining issues between Gourd and the United States at 9 a.m. on August 20, 2001, at the United States Courthouse, 131 W. High Street, Jefferson City, Missouri, 65101.
II. Entry of Judgment
The United States requests that the Court direct entry of a final judgment against Counterclaim Defendant Hohenstreet. No opposition has been filed to this Motion. On December 18, 2000, a jury returned a verdict finding Hohenstreet liable for the unpaid trust fund taxes withheld from the wages of the employees of CIS during the third and fourth quarters of 1996 and the first and second quarters of 1997. In consultation with the Internal Revenue Service, counsel for the United States determined that Hohenstreet's liability is $83,723.39, calculated as of January 31, 2001. That amount reflects the underlying assessment, accrued interest, and abatements of the amount due.
On January 24, 2001, counsel for the United States provided a proposed judgment to Hohenstreet's counsel reflecting the above-mentioned figure, as well as supporting documentation.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides in relevant part that "when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment." Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). The Supreme Court has stated that the function of Rule 54 is "to determine the `appropriate time' when each final decision in a multiple claims action is ready for appeal." Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980) (quoting Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 435 (1956)). The purpose of a Rule 54(b) order is to present an opportunity to "appeal claims affecting some but not all of the parties or some but not all of the issues." Orion Financial Corp. of South Dakota v. American Foods Group, Inc., 201 F.3d 1047, 1049 (8th Cir. 2000).
In reaching a determination under Rule 54(b), the Court must first decide whether it is dealing with a final judgment. See In re Flight Transportation Corp. Securities v. Norwest Bank, Minneapolis, 825 F.2d 1249, 1250 (8th Cir. 1987). A judgment is considered final if "it is a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief, and it must be `final' in the sense that it is `an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.'" Id. (quoting Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 3).
In the instant case, the December 18, 2001, jury verdict against Hohenstreet was a final judgment because it completely disposed of the individual counterclaim between the United States and Hohenstreet. Next, the Court must determine whether there is any just reason for delay. See In re Flight Transportation, 825 F.2d at 1251. "[I]n deciding whether there are no just reasons to delay the appeal of individual final judgments a district court must take into account judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved." Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Housing and Urban Develop., 738 F.2d 310, 313 (8th Cir. 1984) (quoting Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 8).
The Court finds that there is no just reason to delay entry of judgment against Hohenstreet. There is little possibility that appeal of the judgment against Hohenstreet would be mooted by future developments in the underlying litigation between Gourd and the United States. Nothing is to be gained by delaying an appeal pending resolution of the underlying litigation concerning Gourd and an immediate appeal is in the interest of sound judicial administration.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant United States' Motion for a New Trial Against Carolyn Sue Gourd (Doc. # 84) is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that Defendant United States' Motion for Entry of Judgment Against Todd R. Hohenstreet (Doc. # 85) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment against Todd R. Hohenstreet.