Pangelinan v. The United States of America et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 26 Motion for Entry of Partial Judgment. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 5/18/2017. (sjt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALLEN PANGELINAN,

Case No.: 3:15-cv-01730
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION [Doc. 26] FOR ENTRY OF
PARTIAL JUDGMENT

AZTEC CONTRACTORS, INC.,
Defendant.

15
16

Pending before this Court is Plaintiff Allen Pangelinan’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for

17
18

entry of partial judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The Court

19

decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L. R.

20

7.1(d)(1). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
1
3:15-cv-01730

1

I.

BACKGROUND

2

On August 28, 2014, Plaintiff attended his son’s graduation from boot camp at the

3

Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego (“MCRD”). While attending, Plaintiff sought

4

shade underneath a palm tree. A large piece of the tree, weighing five to six pounds, fell

5

onto his neck and right shoulder, causing him injury. On October 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed

6

a claim with the United States Marine Corps seeking compensation for his injury. The

7

Marine Corps denied this claim on February 5, 2015. Subsequently, on August 4, 2015,

8

Plaintiff filed a Complaint [Doc. 1] with this Court. On April 11, 2016, the Court granted

9

Defendants’ first Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 4] Plaintiff’s Complaint, allowing leave to

10

amend. On June 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) [Doc. 15]

11

containing two causes of action. The first cause of action alleged negligence on a

12

premises liability theory against Defendant United States. The second cause of action

13

alleges negligence against Defendant Aztec Contractors, Inc., a business entity contracted

14

by Defendant United States to maintain the trees on its property. On December 2, 2016,

15

the Court granted Defendant United States’ (“Defendant”) second Motion to Dismiss

16

[Doc. 16] with prejudice. Plaintiff now moves unopposed for an entry of final judgment

17

pursuant to Rule 54(b) on their first cause of action against Defendant United States.

18

(See Mot. [Doc. 26].)

19
20
21

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 54(b), in an action presenting more than one claim for relief or

22

involving multiple parties, “the court may direct entry of final judgment as to one or

23

more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if it expressly determines that there is no

24

just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). “Judgments under Rule 54(b) must be

25

reserved for the unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying the number of

26

proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket are outbalanced by pressing needs

27

of the litigants for an early and separate judgment as to some claims or parties.”

28

Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981). As a general
2
3:15-cv-01730

1

matter, partial judgment under Rule 54(b) is inappropriate where the claims stem from

2

the same transaction or occurrence. Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC., 422 F.3d 873, 879 (9th

3

Cir. 2005).

4
5

I.

6

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff contends that the Court should direct an entry of final judgment on the

7

dismissed claim. Plaintiff’s argues that, should this Court’s dismissal of the first cause of

8

action later get reversed, there would be unnecessary duplication of work product

9

because “Plaintiff anticipates a number of motions and discovery which will be relevant

10

to [both causes of action].” (Mot. 3:17–18.) The problem with this argument is that it

11

actually favors denial of Plaintiff’s motion. Because the dismissed cause of action and

12

the pending cause of action allege similar claims based on the same incident, allowing

13

Plaintiff to appeal the partial dismissal now would likely require the Ninth Circuit to

14

review the same facts and issues in a later appeal taken by whichever party ultimately

15

loses on the remaining claim. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to

16

demonstrate that there is no just reason for delay.

17
18
19

II.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for entry of partial

20

judgment.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated: May 18, 2017

23
24
25
26
27
28
3
3:15-cv-01730