Glass Egg Digital Media v. Gameloft, Inc. et al

Filing 118

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 03/29/2018. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2018)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GLASS EGG DIGITAL MEDIA,
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

10

GAMELOFT, INC., et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-04165-MMC

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL
JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 105

12
13

Before the Court is defendants Gameloft Iberica S.A.U. and Vivendi SA’s (“Moving

14

Defendants”) motion, filed February 28, 2018, by which the Moving Defendants seek

15

entry of a final judgment, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

16

in light of the Court’s order of February 12, 2018, dismissing the Moving Defendants for

17

lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff Glass Egg Digital Media Limited (“Glass Egg”) has

18

filed opposition. The Moving Defendants have not filed a reply. The Court, having read

19

and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, deems the

20

matter appropriate for determination on the parties’ respective written submissions,

21

hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for April 6, 2018, and rules as follows.

22

Generally, in the interest of “prevent[ing] piecemeal appeals,” only one final

23

judgment may be entered in a case. See Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 879

24

(9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation and citation omitted). A district court “may direct entry

25

of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court

26

expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the

27

purpose of such exception being “to avoid the possible injustice of delaying judgment on

28

a distinctly separate claim pending adjudication of the entire case,” see Gelboim v. Bank

1

of Am. Corp., 135 S. Ct. 897, 902 (2015) (internal quotation, citation, and alterations

2

omitted).

3

Here, as the Moving Defendants point out, “personal jurisdiction over each

4

defendant must be analyzed individually” (see Mot. at 6:12-13 (citing Brainerd v.

5

Governors of the Univ. of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257, 1258 (9th Cir. 1989)), and, in that

6

regard, can be characterized as a “separate matter.” On the other hand, however,

7

personal jurisdiction over the Moving Defendants was based on alleged derivative

8

liability, and thus the jurisdictional issues are, in this instance, intertwined with the merits

9

of the remaining claims.

10

Moreover, the Moving Defendants’ concerns about the course of the case on a

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

hypothetical appeal have been addressed in large part by Glass Egg’s subsequent

12

voluntary dismissal of all claims against them (see Dkt. No. 108), and, even in the

13

absence of such dismissal, require too many levels of speculation to warrant the relief

14

sought.

15

Accordingly, the Moving Defendants’ motion is hereby DENIED.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: March 29, 2018
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2