[in an action], the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more ... parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) (emphasis added). The Fourth Circuit has held that Rule 54(b) broadens the joint liability rule from Frow so that “just reason for delay” now includes preventing inconsistent judgments in situations in which multiple defendants are jointly and/or severally liable. See United States ex rel. Hudson v. Peerless Ins. Co., 374 F.2d 942, 944 (4th Cir.1967) (emphasis added). Rule 54(b) also authorizes a delay in entry of judgment for the “just reason” of avoiding “logically inconsistent judgments in the same action.” Phoenix Renovation Corp. v. Gulf Coast Software, Inc., 197 F.R.D. 580, 582 (E.D.Va.2000) (<HOLDING>). A logically inconsistent judgment results
holding that a change in the theory of recovery and one prior amendment is not sufficient to deny a motion to amend the complaint where no evidence of bad faith existed holding summary judgment appropriate when the facts in evidence supported another plausible theory not the plaintiffs theory of the case holding that there is no right of recovery against individual defendants under the ada holding full restitution theory satisfies comcast when plaintiffs theory of liability is that the products are entirely ineffective holding that rule 54b applies when plaintiffs theory of recovery against one defendant is largely subsumed by its theory of recovery against the other defendant even though there was no formal joint liability