Jung Jae Lee v. Federal Street LA LLC et al

Filing 136

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - PROPOSED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF TIVOLI DEFENDANTS (Dkt. 129 , filed June 29, 2016) PROPOSED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF FSLA DEFENDANTS (Dkt. 130 , filed June 30, 2016) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Accordingly, defendants' request for entry of a final judgment in favor of the Tivoli Defendants and the TVW Defendants is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. (clee)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

‘O’

Case No.

2:14-cv-06264-CAS(SSx)

Title

JUNG JAE LEE V. FEDERAL STREET, LA. LLC, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

July 19, 2016

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) - PROPOSED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
TIVOLI DEFENDANTS (Dkt. 129, filed June 29, 2016)
PROPOSED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF FSLA DEFENDANTS
(Dkt. 130, filed June 30, 2016)

On June 27, 2016, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants
as to plaintiff’s fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh claims for relief. Dkt. 128. As a result of
the Court’s ruling, there are presently no claims pending against defendants Tivoli Square
Apartments, L.P., Tivoli Capital, Inc., Milan Properties, LLC (collectively, “the Tivoli
Defendants”), The View Wilshire, LLC, JMCP Corp., JMCP, LLC, and JMCP Manager,
LLC (collectively, “the TVW Defendants”). The case remains pending against
defendants Federal Street L.A., LLC, Federal Street Corporation, Judi Fishman, and
Michael Winter. Defendants now request that the Court enter a final judgment in favor of
the Tivoli Defendants and the TVW Defendants and have lodged proposed judgments
with the Court. Dkt. 129, 130. Plaintiff objects to the entry of a final judgment in favor
of these defendants. Dkt. 131, 132.
“When an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . or when multiple
parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but
fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just
reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); see also Purdy Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Champion
Home Builders Co., 594 F.2d 1313, 1317 (9th Cir. 1979) (“Whether there is just reason
for delay in the entry of judgment is a matter left to the discretion of the district court.”).
Here, the Court finds that there is just reason for delay. Namely, a trial in this matter is
currently scheduled to begin on September 13, 2016. At trial, either party may introduce
evidence that causes the Court to reconsider its prior ruling granting summary judgment
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:14-cv-06264-CAS(SSx)

July 19, 2016

Title

JUNG JAE LEE V. FEDERAL STREET, LA. LLC, ET AL.

in favor of defendants. See also City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica
Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001) (“As long as a district court has jurisdiction
over the case, then it possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or
modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient.”) (citations omitted);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (any order adjudicating less than all the claims “may be revised at
any time before the entry of a judgment”). Accordingly, defendants’ request for entry of
a final judgment in favor of the Tivoli Defendants and the TVW Defendants is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 2 of 2