EFTA Document EFTA01363295

Page 5 91 F.3d 385, *; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 19807, **; 35 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1352 Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Jurisdiction > Final Judgment Rule [HN1] Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), an order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties is not a final judgment unless the district court makes an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and an express direction for the entry of judgment. Strict adherence to the certification requirements of Rule 54(b) has been the court's consistent view. Civil Procedure > Judgments > Entry of Judgments > Multiple Claims & Parties Civil Procedure > Judgments > Relief From Judgment > Motions to Alter & Amend Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Jurisdiction > Final Judgment Rule [HN2] To be certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), an order must possess the degree of finality required to meet the appealability requirements of 28 U.S.C.S. § 1291. This degree of finality is defined as a judgment which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Pleadings > Amended Pleadings > Leave of Court Civil Procedure > Judgments > Relief From Judgment > Motions to Alter & Amend Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Jurisdiction > Final Judgment Rule [HN3] An order denying leave to amend a complaint is not a "final decision" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.S. § 1291. Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Jurisdiction > Interlocutory Orders [HN4] See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1292(b). Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Jurisdiction > Collateral Order Doctrine Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Jurisdiction > Final Judgment Rule [HN5] Under the "collateral order" exception to the final judgment, an interlocutory order is immediately appealable if, inter alia, the order would "be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment." COUNSEL: FREDERICK R. DETTMER, New York, NY (Karen M. Streisfeld, Law Office of Frederick R. Dettmer, New York, NY, Neil Friedkin, Lamendola & Friedkin, Great Neck, NY, of counsel), for Plaintiffs-Appellants. ANDREW R. KOSLOFF, New York, NY (Kent T. Stauffer, Litigation Division, The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., of counsel), for Defendant-Appellee Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. SCOTT K. NIGRO, Long Beach, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Richard Kahn. Kenneth M.H. Hoff, Matthias & Berg, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Matthias & Berg, Jeffrey P. Berg, and Michael R. Matthias. JUDGES: Before: MINER, McLAUGHLIN and LEVAL, Circuit Judges. OPINION BY: MINER For internal use only CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) DB-SDNY-0053245 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00199429 EFTA01363295