Claver v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company

Filing 23

ORDER Denying 17 Plaintiff's Motion to Enter Partial Judgment Under Rule 54(b). Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 6/8/2009. (mjj)(jrl).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Civil No. 08cv817-L(AJB) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENTER PARTIAL JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 54(b)

JASON CLAVER, individually and on 12 behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL 16 BROKERAGE COMPANY, a California corporation, 17 Defendant. 18 _________________________________ 19

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Pending before the court is Plaintiff's motion to direct entry of the March 25, 2009 order

20 as a partial judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). For the reasons which 21 follow, the motion is DENIED. 22 Plaintiff is a real estate salesperson and Defendant is a real estate broker. They entered

23 into a contract whereby Plaintiff was to list and sell residential real estate exclusively on behalf 24 of Defendant. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendant violated California Labor Code 25 Sections 221 and 400 though 410 as well as the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Order 26 No. 4-2001 ("Wage Order 4-2001"). Defendant allegedly required him and others to purchase 27 automobile and professional liability insurance to indemnify Defendant in case of any third-party 28 claims. In addition, Plaintiff alleged that this constituted unlawful and unfair business practice
08cv817

1 in violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. ("Unfair 2 Competition Law" or "UCL"). 3 Defendant filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 25, 2009 the

4 court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion. The court rejected Plaintiff's 5 argument that he was Defendant's employee as a matter of law, and granted the motion with 6 leave to amend to the extent the claims relied on Plaintiff's assertion of employment relationship 7 as a matter of law. On April 9, 2009 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and re-alleged the 8 same causes of action based on employment allegations under the common law standard, see 9 Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 154 Cal. App. 4th 1, 10 (2007).1 Subsequently, 10 Plaintiff filed the instant motion to have the March 25 order entered as final judgment for 11 purposes of appeal as provided by Rule 54(b). 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides in pertinent part: Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When an action presents more than one claim relief . . . or when multiple parties are involved, 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. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities. The power to enter partial final judgment "is largely discretionary, to be exercised in light

19 of judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved, and giving due weight to the 20 historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals." Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258, 265 21 (1993)(citations and quotation marks omitted). In Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. Archer, the 22 Ninth Circuit elaborated on the requirements of Rule 54(b): 23 24 25 26 27
1 For reasons not in Plaintiff's papers, the also re-alleged his theory of 28 employment relationship as a explainedlaw. matter of

Judgments under Rule 54(b) must be reserved for the unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying the number of proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket are outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for an early and separate judgment as to some claims or parties. The trial court should not direct entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) unless it has made specific findings setting forth the reasons for its order. Those findings should include a determination whether, upon any review of the judgment entered under the rule, the appellate

2

08cv817

1 2 3

court will be required to address legal or factual issues that are similar to those contained in the claims still pending before the trial court. A similarity of legal or factual issues will weigh heavily against entry of judgment under the rule, and in such cases a Rule 54(b) order will be proper only where necessary to avoid a harsh and unjust result, documented by further and specific findings.

4 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981). 5 Plaintiff argues that partial final judgment should be entered because he wishes to appeal

6 the issue whether he was an employee as a matter of law, the remaining claims do not present the 7 same issues, and because the issue of employment as a matter of law under the circumstances of 8 this case presents an issue of first impression under California law. (Pl.'s Mem. of P.&A. at 6.) 9 Plaintiff's arguments are unavailing. 10 If the court were to grant the motion, Plaintiff could appeal his labor law claims to the

11 extent they are based on the theory of employment as a matter of law. Remaining for decision in 12 this court and on a possible later appeal would be the same claims to the extent they are based on 13 the common law employment theory. Although these legal theories differ with regard to some 14 legal and factual issues which pertain to the existence of the employment relationship, other 15 issues pertaining to the application of California Labor Code Sections 221 and 400 though 410 16 and Wage Order 4-2001 as well as the factual basis for the alleged violations are the same. 17 Accordingly, granting Plaintiff's motion would result in piecemeal appeals in this case and 18 would be improvident. See Wood v. GCC Blend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2005). 19 Furthermore, the partial adjudication of a single claim would not be appealable regardless of a 20 Rule 54(b) certification." Id. at 880 n.3. 21 Plaintiff further argues that denying his motion would result in prejudice because he may

22 be required to litigate the case to final resolution before appealing. Far from being the unusual 23 case, this is the ususal case where some issues are adjudicated earlier than others. Plaintiff has 24 failed to make the requisite showing of no just reason for delay. 25 / / / / / 26 / / / / / 27 / / / / / 28 / / / / /
3
08cv817

1

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to enter partial judgment under Rule 54(b) is

2 DENIED. 3 4 5 DATED: June 8, 2009 6 7 8 COPY TO: M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge IT IS SO ORDERED.

HON. ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
4
08cv817