ROBERT W. SWEET, District Judge.
Defendants Donna Karen Weiss ("Karan") and Urban Zen, LLC ("Urban Zen") (collectively referred to as the "Karan Defendants") have moved (i) for partial final judgment as to the Karan Defendants, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) ("Rule 54(b)"); (ii) to amend the caption by deleting the Karen Defendants, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; and (iii) to enjoin the plaintiff, Jamie A. Naughright ("Naughright" or the "Plaintiff") from continuing this action or instituting any further action or actions against the Karan Defendants, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Based upon the conclusions set forth below, the motions to amend the caption and partial final judgment are granted and the motion for an injunction is denied.
Naughright filed a complaint against the defendants on November 8, 2010. The complaint was dismissed on November 18, 2011. The amended complaint was filed on December 9, 2011, alleging injuries resulting from treatment Naughright received on November 8, 2009, at Karan's apartment.
In an opinion issued on March 7, 2012 (the "March 7 Opinion"), the negligent misrepresentation claim against the Karan Defendants was dismissed, the motion to dismiss the negligence claim against defendant Stephen M. Robbins ("Robbins") was denied, the fraud claim against Robbins was dismissed in part, and the motion to dismiss the medical malpractice battery and failure to obtain consent claims against Robbins were denied.
The instant motion was heard and marked fully submitted on December 12, 2012.
The Applicable Rule 54(b) Standard
In an action involving multiple claims or multiple parties, an order that finally disposes of fewer than all claims against all parties is generally not entered as a "final judgment." Rule 54(b). However, Rule 54(b) permits the court to expressly direct the entry of final judgment as to individually dismissed claims or parties when: (1) there has been a "final decision" on at least one claim or the rights and liabilities of at least one party; and (2) the district court makes an express determination that there is "no just reason for delay" and expressly directs the clerk to enter judgment.
No Just Reason To Delay The Judgment Has Been Established
Naughright has not opposed the 54(b) motion of the Karan Defendants. The claims against the Karan Defendants are separable from the claims against Robbins. Although the Karan Defendants were involved in the circumstances giving rise to Naughright's claims against Robbins, no basis for delaying the entry of a partial judgment dismissing claims against the Karan Defendants has been established.
A dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) is a final decision and judgment on the merits. See, e.g.,
Given the absence of a just reason to delay entry of a partial judgment, the motion for such an entry is granted.
The Caption Is Amended
Leave to amend a pleading "shall be freely given when justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), and courts routinely direct the clerk of the court to amend the caption and remove the names of parties that have been dismissed from the action.
No Basis For Injunctive Relief Has Been Established
As noted by the Karan Defendants, "the traditional standards for injunctive relief, i.e., irreparable injury and inadequate remedy at law, do not apply to the issuance of an injunction against a vexatious litigant... [and] a history of litigation entailing vexation, harassment and needless expense to other parties and an unnecessary burden on the courts and their supporting personnel is enough" to warrant such a remedy.
The Karan Defendants have asserted that Naughright has an extensive history of filing repetitive lawsuits against or involving public figures, apparently having "spent the majority of eight years [1998 through 2005] filing legal complaints against or about [Peyton] Manning... [some of which] had no basis in law or in fact and were fueled only by [plaintiff's] relentless search for revenge."
In addition, correspondence has been submitted in which Naughright describes, or repeats, her condition and claims against Robbins and his representations.
Notwithstanding the above, however, no irreparable injury to the Karan Defendants has been established, nor has it been established that Naughright's conduct surpasses the threshold set forth in
No basis for injunctive relief having been established, the motion of the Karan Defendants to bar Naughright from any action against them is denied at this time.
The entry of a partial final judgment dismissing the claims against the Karan Defendants is granted, the caption is amended accordingly and the motion for injunction is denied.
It is so ordered.