Page 8 91 F.3d 385, *; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 19807, **; 35 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1352 Because the August 17th order did not dispose of all claims against all parties and because there was no Rule 54(b) certification, the August 17th order remains interlocutory and is not appealable. See HBE Leasing Corp. v. Frank, 48 F.3d 623, 632 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that order that did not resolve all the claims in the action was interlocutory and was not appealable because there was no Rule 54(b) certification); see also Martin- Trigona, 763 F.2d at 139 (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction where the defendant appealed from an order disposing of only a portion of the case and the district rig court had not certified the appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b)); DeNubilo v. United States, 343 F.2d 455 (2d Cir. 1965) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction where the plaintiffs appealed from an order denying their motion to amend their complaint and the district court had not certified the appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b)). 1 We are not persuaded by the Plaintiffs' reliance on Lockett v. General Finance Loan Co., 623 F.2d 1128 (Rh Cir. 1980). Lockett held that an order denying leave to amend a complaint was final because the plaintiffs' action against a newly sought defendant would otherwise be time-barred. But in that case the district court did certify the appeal under Rule 54(b), id. at 1129. which the court below did not. We thus find Lockett inapposite, and otherwise decline to follow it. The portion of the district court's August 17th order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint could not have been certified under Rule 54(b) in any event. [HN2] To be certified under [""9] Rule 54(b), an order must possess the "degree of finality required to meet the appealability requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1291." Acha v. Beame, 570 F.2d 57, 62 (2d Cir. 1978). This degree of finality is "defined as a judgment 'which ends the litigation on the merits