Federated Service Insurance Company v. Sievers Equipment Co. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
FEDERATED SERVICE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SIEVERS EQUIPMENT CO. and TRAVIS
JALINSKY,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-42-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Federated Service Insurance Company’s
(“Federated”) motion for default judgment against defendant Travis Jalinsky (Doc. 22). Because
the claims against defendant Sievers Equipment Co. (“Sievers”) are still pending, any judgment
entered by the Court against defendant Jalinsky at this time must be pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 54(b), which permits the Court to certify for appeal a judgment resolving all
claims against one party. See General Ins. Co. of Am. v. Clark Mall Corp., 644 F.3d 375, 379
(7th Cir. 2011); National Metalcrafters, Div. of Keystone Consol. Indus. v. McNeil, 784 F.2d
817, 821 (7th Cir. 1986). Rule 54(b) states:
Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When an action
presents more than one claim for relief—whether as a claim, counterclaim,
crossclaim, or third-party claim—or when multiple parties are involved, the court
may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims
or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for
delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all
the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be
revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and
all the parties' rights and liabilities.
“But the rule does not provide an open invitation for the district court to certify a ruling
Case 3:26-cv-00042-JPG Document 23 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
for interlocutory appeal.” Rankins v. Sys. Sols. of Ky., LLC, 40 F.4th 589, 591-92 (7th Cir.
2022). District courts are not to utilize Rule 54(b) unless there is a good reason for doing so.
United States v. Ettrick Wood Prods., Inc., 916 F.2d 1211, 1218 (7th Cir. 1990). The decision to
certify a final judgment as to fewer than all claims in a case is left to the sound discretion of the
district court. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980); Schieffelin & Co.
v. Valley Liquors, Inc., 823 F.2d 1064, 1065 (7th Cir. 1987).
In determining whether to grant judgment under Rule 54(b), the Court must first
determine whether the judgment is final in the sense that it is “‘an ultimate disposition of an
individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.’” Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at
7 (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 436 (1956)); see Rankins, 40 F.4th at
592; General Ins. Co., 644 F.3d at 379. To determine whether an order is final, the Court must
“ask whether there is significant factual and legal overlap between the claim proposed for appeal
and the part of the case pending in the district court.” Rankins, 40 F.4th at 592. Where claims
are substantively intertwined—such as, for example, where the pending claims factually overlap
with those for which a Rule 54(b) judgment is sought—a Rule 54(b) judgment is inappropriate.
Id.; see General Ins. Co., 644 F.3d at 380.
Then, the Court must determine whether there is any just reason for delay, taking into
account the interests of judicial administration and the equities involved. Curtiss-Wright, 446
U.S. at 8; Rankins, 40 F.4th at 592; General Ins. Co., 644 F.3d at 379; Schieffelin, 823 F.2d at
1065-66. In attempting to prevent piecemeal litigation, the Court should “consider such factors
as whether the claims under review [are] separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated
and whether the nature of the claims already determined [is] such that no appellate court would
have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were subsequent appeals.” Curtiss-
Case 3:26-cv-00042-JPG Document 23 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
Wright, 446 U.S. at 8; see ODC Commc’ns Corp. v. Wenruth Invs., 826 F.2d 509, 512 (7th Cir.
1987).
The claims against Sievers and Jalinsky in this declaratory judgment action substantially
overlap. Federated seeks a declaration that it owes no duty to defend or indemnity Sievers, its
insured, for an underlying tort lawsuit brought by Jalinsky. Jalinsky has been joined in this
action solely to bind him to any declaration in this case about Federated’s duties to Sievers. The
Court’s decision against both defendants will turn on its interpretation of the same two insurance
policies at issue and the same facts regarding application of those policies. The claims are not
separable. Therefore, a Rule 54(b) judgment is not appropriate in this case, and the Court
DENIES without prejudice Federated’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 22). Federated may
reapply for default judgment when the claims against Sievers are resolved.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 16, 2026
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00042-JPG Document 23 Filed 03/16/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>