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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?