Under Washington State law, what is the Express Direction Rule and how is it applied to judgments in Washington State Superior Courts? Here’s my point of view.
(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)
CIVIL RULE 54(b) — JUDGMENTS ON MULTIPLE CLAIMS
Washington State Superior Court Civil Rule 54(b) governs entry of judgments on multiple claims and provides that “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 in the judgment, supported by written findings, that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.” Fluor Enterprises, Inc. v. Walter Construction, LTD., 141 Wn.App. 761, 766, 172 P.3d 368, (Div. I 2007) (quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, the courts have held that four things are required for entry of a final judgment under CR 54(b):
(1) more than one claim for relief or more than one party against whom relief is sought;
(2) an express determination that there is no just reason for delay;
(3) written findings supporting the determination that there is no just reason for delay; and
(4) an express direction for entry of the judgment.
Fluor Enterprises, Inc., 141 Wn.App. at 766-67 (quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).
EXPRESS DIRECTION FOR ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT
Washington State appellate courts have clarified that element four–an express direction for entry of the judgment–requires that the trial court’s order must expressly direct entry of a CR 54(b) final judgment or it will not meet the requirements of CR 54(b). Fluor Enterprises, Inc., 141 Wn.App. at 769.
In Fluor Enterprises, Inc., there was more than one claim for relief and the trial court’s order on one of the claims did not expressly direct entry of a CR 54(b) final judgment. Consequently, the court held that the trial court’s order as to that claim did not meet the requirements of CR 54(b). Id.
ALL CLAIMS FOR & AGAINST ALL PARTIES
It is worth noting that Washington State appellate courts have expressly mandated that entry of a final judgment should await the resolution of all claims for and against all parties. Id. at 767 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders with Ethics and Accountability Now (C.L.E.A.N.), 119 Wn.App. 665, 82 P.3d 1199, rev. denied, 152 Wn.2d 1023, 101 P.3d 107 (2004)).
Furthermore, the appellate courts have held that the following reasons justify a trial court’s delay of the entry of a final judgment until all claims had been resolved:
(1) to offset judgments favorable to each side before any enforcement activity takes place;
(2) to preclude the disruptive effects of enforcement and appellate activity while trial court proceedings are still ongoing; and
(3) to avoid a multiplicity of appeals.
Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
LEARN MORE
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.