States, 398 A.2d 354, 364 (D.C.1979). But in most Rule 54(b) situations, it would be too speculative for this court itself to try to sort out from the record all the pros and cons of certification in a particular case with multiple parties involving, for example, claims against two or more defendants and a cross-claim, as is the case here. When trial court certification portends piecemeal appeals, a clear statement of reasons for certification is essential for review. Accordingly, joining most of the federal circuit courts of appeals, we hold that a Rule 54(b) certification must be accompanied by a statement of reasons explaining why the judgment should be deemed final for purposes of appeal. See Anthuis v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 971 F.2d 999, 1003-04 & n. 4 (3d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Cullen, 811 F.2d at 711. (“Since the
holding that rule 54b certification order should contain specific findings setting forth reasons for certification holding that entry of final judgment on a claim in a multiparty action pursuant to rule 54b should clearly articulate the reasons and factors underlying the decision to grant 54b certification holding that a permanency planning order was not immediately appealable under rule 69 absent a rule 54b certification holding rule 54b certification invalid because unaccompanied by any statement of reasons and factors underlying trial courts decision to grant certification holding that dismissal of some but not all claims or parties not immediately appealable absent rule 54b certification