from the proceeds of any amount received from a settlement with or final judgment against the other defendants in the case. 16 . Specifically, the district court awarded damages in the following amounts: Mr. Gaff-ney: $35,632; Mr. Goodridge: $126,505; Mr. Anderson: $77,060; Mr. Bell: $55,564; Mr. Beardon: $122,046; Mr. Palmer: $127,767; Mr. Trundy: $113,564; and Mr. Reilly: $25,100. See R.192. Included in these sums are $25,000 in punitive damages per plaintiff. Id.; see also R.191 at 40 (finding that punitive relief is appropriate, given that Riverboat "acted willfully and wantonly in its dismissal of each of the plaintiffs”). 17 . Almost all of the circuits have adopted this same approach to Rule 21 severance. See, e.g., Acevedo-Garciav. Monroig, 351 F.3d 547, 560 (1st Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States ex rel. LaCorte v. SmithKline
holding that remand orders are also appealable orders under 28 usc  1291 holding that order denying motion to dismiss a bankruptcy petition is final under 28 usc  1291 holding that a district courts denial of a claim of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision within the meaning of 28 usc  1291 to the extent that it turns on an issue of law holding that a district courts denial of a claim of qualified immunity to the extent that it turns on an issue of law is an appealable final decision within the meaning of 28 usc  1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment holding that the rule 21 severance rendered the district court verdict a final and appealable judgment under 28 usc  1291