Mililani Group, Inc. v. O'Reilly Automotive, Inc.

Filing 37

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/14/2013 GRANTING 31 Defendant's Motion for Entry of Judgment in favor of O'Reilly. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MILILANI GROUP, INC.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
O’REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., and
CSK AUTO, INC.,
Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00891 JAM-CKD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF O’REILLY

18

This matter is before the Court on Defendants O’Reilly

19

Automotive, Inc. (“O’Reilly”), and CSK Auto, Inc.’s (“CSK”)

20

(collectively “Defendants”) Motion for Entry of Judgment in Favor

21

of O’Reilly (Doc. #31).

22

(“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion (Doc. ##32, 36) and Defendants

23

replied (Doc. #34).1

24

is GRANTED.

25

///

26

///

27
28

Plaintiff Mililani Group, Inc.

For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion

1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled
for June 5, 2013.
1

1
2

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendants moved to dismiss all claims against O’Reilly and

3

the waste claim; that motion was granted with leave to amend (Doc.

4

#16).

5

(Doc. #17), Defendants once more moved to dismiss all claims

6

against O’Reilly and the waste claim.

7

granted Defendants’ second motion to dismiss with prejudice

8

(“Order”).

9

After Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)

On April 3, 2013, the Court

Order, Doc. #29, at 7.

On May 5, 2013, Defendants filed this present motion for

10

entry of judgment in favor of O’Reilly (Doc. #31).

Plaintiff

11

opposed the motion (Doc. #32).

12

amending the Order as follows: “All claims against Defendant

13

O’Reilly Automotive, Inc., (Defendant O’Reilly) are dismissed with

14

prejudice.”

15

Order”), Doc. #33.

16

the Court in writing whether it still opposed the entry of

17

judgment in favor of O’Reilly.

18

responded to the Court’s minute order, stating that it still

19

opposes Defendants’ motion for entry of judgment.

20

Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (“Response”), Doc.

21

#36, at 2.

The Court issued a minute order

Minute Order and Order to Show Cause (“Minute
The Court further ordered Plaintiff to inform

Id.

On May 29, 2013, Plaintiff

Plaintiff’s

22
23

II. OPINION

24

A.

Legal Standard

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) allows a district court

26

to direct entry of final judgment for the purpose of appeal as to

27

one or more, but fewer than all, claims if the Court expressly

28

determines that there is no just reason for delay.
2

Fed. R. Civ.

1

P. 54(b).

First, the Court must determine whether it is dealing

2

with a final judgment.

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,

3

446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980).

“It must be a ‘judgment’ in the sense that

4

it is a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief, and it must

5

be ‘final’ in the sense that it is ‘an ultimate disposition of an

6

individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims

7

action.’”

8

427, 436 (1956)).

9

is any just reason for delay, “tak[ing] into account judicial

Id. (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S.
Second, the Court must determine whether there

10

administrative interests as well as the equities involved.”

11

at 8.

12

district court may consider factors such as ‘whether the claims

13

under review were separable from the others remaining to be

14

adjudicated’ as well as ‘whether the nature of the claims already

15

determined is such that no appellate court would have to decide

16

the same issues more than once even if there were subsequent

17

appeals.’”

18

1152063, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2013) (citing Curtiss-Wright

19

Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980)).

20
21
22

B.

Id.

To determine if there is any just reason for delay, “[a]

Randhawa v. Skylux, Inc., CIV. 2:09-02304 WBS, 2013 WL

Discussion
1.

Final Judgment

Defendants argue that the case against O’Reilly has been fully

23

and finally determined in favor of O’Reilly.

Mot. at 5.

Plaintiff

24

argues that entry of judgment is not appropriate because no facts

25

have been developed and because the Court may change its mind.

26

Response at 2.

27

alter ego liability against O’Reilly and therefore the Court

28

dismissed all claims against O’Reilly without leave to amend.

However, Plaintiff failed twice to properly allege

3

1

Order at 5.

2

against O’Reilly have been dismissed with prejudice.

3

Doc. #33.

4

claims against O’Reilly as required for entry of judgment under

5

Rule 54(d).

6

Moreover, the Court has now made clear that all claims
Minute Order,

Accordingly, the Court has ultimately disposed of all

2.

Just Reason for Delay

7

Defendants contend that entry of judgment in O’Reilly’s favor

8

would promote judicial efficiency because if Plaintiff prevails in

9

appealing the entry of judgment in O’Reilly’s favor, the case would

10

then continue simultaneously against both O’Reilly and CSK.

11

at 2.

12

start the time period for an appeal and force Plaintiff to appeal

13

the judgment now instead of waiting to resolve all issues in a

14

single appeal at the conclusion of the case.

15

Because the alter ego claim against O’Reilly is separate from the

16

breach of contract claim that remains against CSK, the appellate

17

court will not have to decide the same issue more than once and

18

therefore, one single appeal is unnecessary.

19

1152063, at *2 (noting that the Court should consider whether the

20

claims are separable and whether the appellate court would have to

21

decide the same issue more than once).

22

finds that there is no just reason for delay.

Plaintiff disagrees, arguing that entry of judgment would

23
24
25
26
27

Reply

Response at 2.

See Randhawa, 2013 WL

Accordingly, the Court

III. ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion for Entry
of Judgment in Favor of O’Reilly is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 14, 2013

____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
4