Fisher v. Aetna Life Insurance Company
- Gregory Woods
- 1:15-cv-00283
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fisher v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, Judge Woods directed final judgment on count one, certified count two for interlocutory appeal, and stayed the case.
The order affects Jacqueline Fisher and Aetna Life Insurance Company by directing final judgment on count one, certifying the count-two ruling for interlocutory appeal, and staying the case.
What happened
In Fisher v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, the parties jointly asked the court to enter final judgment on count one and allow an immediate appeal concerning count two.
The court had dismissed count one after a bench trial. It had also previously granted in part and denied in part both parties’ summary-judgment motions on count two.
Judge Gregory H. Woods agreed to both requests, directed entry of final judgment on count one, certified the count-two ruling for interlocutory appeal, and stayed the case pending further action by the court of appeals.
The detailed version
- Fisher v. Aetna Life Insurance Company · No. 1:15-cv-00283
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 20, 2020
Background
The parties jointly asked the court to take two procedural steps. First, they asked for entry of a final judgment on count one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The court had dismissed count one after a bench trial. Second, they asked the court to certify its earlier ruling on count two for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). That earlier ruling had granted in part and denied in part each party’s motion for summary judgment.
Ruling
The court agreed with the parties. It directed entry of a final judgment as to count one under Rule 54(b), finding no just reason for delay. It also certified its ruling on count two for interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b), concluding that the statutory standard was satisfied. The court stayed the case pending further action from the court of appeals.
Effect
This order authorized final judgment on count one and appellate review of the earlier count-two ruling before the entire case was resolved. The order did not itself decide the underlying merits of the count-two dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.