Haskins et al v. Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC et al

Filing 101

ORDER CLARIFYING MAY 7 ORDER OF JUDGMENT re 100 ORDER RE JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL AS TO DEFENDANT FULLER-O'BRIEN INC. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 12, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RICHARD E. HASKINS, et al.,

Case No. 11-cv-05142-JST

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER CLARIFYING MAY 7 ORDER
OF JUDGMENT

9
CHEROKEE GRAND AVENUE LLC, et
al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

Re: ECF No. 100

12
13

Upon review of the docket, it has come to the Court’s attention that its May 7 judgment of

14

dismissal failed to “expressly determine[] that there is no just reason for delay in the entry of final

15

judgment,” as required by Federal Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court

16

hereby clarifies that it intended to expressly so find.

17

In entering judgment as to Defendant Fuller-O’Brien, Inc. and the O’Brien Corporation

18

(collectively, “FOB”), the Court has considered whether “the appellate court will be required to

19

address legal or factual issues that are similar to those contained in the claims still pending before

20

the trial court.” Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981). The

21

Court dismissed all claims against FOB because suits against it are barred by the statute of

22

limitations applicable to dissolved corporations. See Order Setting Aside Default and Dismissing

23

Claims Against Defendant Fuller-O’Brien, Inc., ECF No. 83, at 6:22-8:14. That legal issue does

24

not apply to any other defendants in this case. The dismissal also completely disposes of all

25

claims against this particular defendant, and if upheld on appeal would make further litigation as

26

to those parties unnecessary. See Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. Carlsberg Fin. Corp., 689 F.2d 815,

27

817 (9th Cir. 1982).

28

The Court hereby clarifies, nunc pro tunc to May 7, that it has “determined that there is no

1
2
3
4
5

just reason for delay in the entry of final judgment on this order.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 54(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 12, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2