Wyatt et al v. B.P America Corp. et al

Filing 38

ORDER Re Defendants' 32 33 Motions for Entry of Judgment. This Court Grants Defendants 7-Eleven and Circle K Stores' motion for entry of judgment. (Doc. 32 ). The Court Grants Chevron USA's motion (Doc. 33 ) but will stay entry of judgment pending further notice regarding the parties' settlement efforts. A status conference will be held on May 13, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. if such notice has not yet been filed. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 1/16/2014. (rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

MARK WYATT, et al.
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14
15
16
17
18

B.P. AMERICA CORP., et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 07cv1754 BTM (JMA)
ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS FOR ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT

Defendants 7-Eleven, Inc. and Circle K Stores, Inc. have moved for entry of
judgment against Plaintiffs. (Doc. 32). Defendant Chevron USA, Inc. argues that

19
20

good cause exists for entry of judgment against Plaintiffs, but asks the Court to

21

withhold entry of judgment pending further notice regarding the parties’ settlement

22

efforts. (Doc. 33). Plaintiffs do not oppose the motions. (Doc. 34, 35).

23
24
25

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs sued multiple California motor fuel retailers and refiners for allegedly

26

selling fuel without disclosing or adjusting for temperature, without disclosing that
27
28

1

1

temperature affects the energy content of the fuel, and overcharging plaintiffs for fuel

2

excise taxes. Plaintiffs claimed Defendants’ conduct violated California’s Unfair

3
4

Competition Law (UCL), Consumers Legal Remedy Act (CLRA), breached the

5

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and constituted unjust enrichment. In

6

October 2007, the case was transferred, along with a number of other related actions

7
8

from other states, to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (“the

9

MDL Court”) for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. (Case No. 07-MD-1840, Doc.

10

No. 192).

11
12

On July 19, 2013, the MDL Court granted Chevron USA’s motion for

13

summary judgment against Plaintiffs. (Case No. 07-MD-1840, Doc. No. 4600). The

14

MDL Court later extended the grant of summary judgment to the remaining non-

15
16

settling defendants in the California cases, including those in this case: 7-Eleven and

17

Circle K. (Case No. 07-MD-1840, Doc. No. 4601, 4616). The MDL court

18

recommended remand to this Court and entry of judgment in favor of the Defendants.

19
20
21
22

(Case No. 07-MD-1840, Doc. No. 4617).
ANALYSIS
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) provides that “[w]hen an action presents more than one

23
24

claim for relief . . . or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry

25

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

26
27
28

court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.”
2

1
2

The Ninth Circuit expanded on how this rule is applied in Wood v. GCC Bend,
LLC, 422 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2005).

3

A district court must first determine that it has rendered a
final judgment, that is, a judgment that is an ultimate
disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of
a multiple claims action. Then it must determine whether
there is any just reason for delay. It is left to the sound
judicial discretion of the district court to determine the
appropriate time when each final decision in a multiple
claims action is ready for appeal. This discretion is to be
exercised in the interest of sound judicial administration.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Id. at 878 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

11
12

In this case, the parties agree that the MDL Court rendered final judgment

13

against Plaintiffs regarding their California claims. Defendants 7-Eleven and Circle K

14

Stores and Plaintiffs have suggested no grounds for delay. Accordingly, this Court

15
16

GRANTS Defendants 7-Eleven and Circle K Stores’ motion for entry of judgment.

17

(Doc. 32).

18

Defendant Chevron USA and Plaintiff agree that good cause exists for an entry

19
20

of judgment in Defendant’s favor, but nonetheless ask the Court to stay judgment

21

pending further notice regarding settlement efforts. Chevron USA explains that their

22

settlement discussions contemplate entry of judgment in this case occurring after the
23
24

MDL Court grants settlement final approval, which is anticipated to occur in the

25

spring of 2014. The parties have established just reason for delay. Accordingly, the

26
27
28

Court GRANTS Chevron USA’s motion (Doc. 33) but will stay entry of judgment
3

1
2

pending further notice regarding the parties’ settlement efforts. A status conference
will be held on May 13, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. if such notice has not yet been filed.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: January 16, 2014

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4