Marks v. Chicoine et al
ORDER VACATING EXISTING JUDGMENT AND FINDING IT APPROPRIATE TO ENTER SEPARATE JUDGMENT (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/4/2009: # 1 cs) (ys, COURT STAFF).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LESLIE BARNES MARKS, v. Plaintiff, No. C 06-6806 SI ORDER VACATING EXISTING JUDGMENT AND FINDING IT APPROPRIATE TO ENTER SEPARATE JUDGMENT / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TOM CHICOINE, et al., Defendants.
On April 10, 2009, the Court granted in part plaintiff's motion for default judgment as to defendant Tom Chicoine, and the Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against Chicoine in the amount of $25,000. However, as plaintiff points out, this action has been stayed as to other defendants whose bankruptcy proceedings are pending, so that the existing judgment resolves fewer than all claims and parties. The Court therefore VACATES the existing judgment and will issue a separate one against Chicoine only. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), "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). The Court finds that there is no just reason for delay in entering final judgment as to defendant Chicoine, because this action is stayed as to all remaining defendants pending the conclusion of bankruptcy proceedings against Home123 Corporation and New Century Mortgage Corporation. Docket Nos. 52-53. A separate judgment will be entered accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 29, 2009 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge
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?