Reno Contracting, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company et al

Filing 81

ORDER Granting Defendant's Motion for Entry of Judgment Under Rule 54(b) (Doc. 79 ). Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 11/18/2019. (jdt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16

RENO CONTRACTING, INC.,

Case No.: 18-CV-0450 W (JLB)
Plaintiff,

17
18

v.

19

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 54(b)
[DOC. 79]

CRUM & FORSTER SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,

20

Defendant.

21
22
23

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Judgment under Federal Rule

24

of Civil Procedure 54(b). (Mot. [Doc. 79].) Plaintiff has failed to respond. The Court

25

decides the matter without oral argument and on the papers submitted pursuant to Civil

26

Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s

27

motion [Doc. 79].

28
1
18-CV-0450 W (JLB)

1

I.

2

BACKGROUND
Since March 2019, Plaintiff has ceased to litigate this case. [Docs. 55, 62.] As a

3

result, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure

4

to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). [Doc. 73.]
On August 14, 2019, Defendant provided the Court with notice of Plaintiff’s

5
6

Bankruptcy Filing and Automatic Stay. [Doc. 77.] The Court stayed Defendant’s Cross-

7

Complaint—regarding a different insurance policy—pending resolution of the

8

bankruptcy petition. [Doc. 78.]

9
10

Defendant now requests the Court enter judgment in its favor pursuant Rule
54(b).

11
12

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

13

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) permits the district court to direct entry of

14

final judgment on individual claims in a multi-claim action “only if the court expressly

15

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

16

court “must take into account judicial administrative interests as well as the equities

17

involved.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980). Partial final

18

judgment is proper where the claims are separable, and their nature is such that no

19

appellate court will have to decide the same issues more than once. Id.

20
21
22

III.

DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff has consented to the dismissal of this case by

23

failing to oppose Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See Judge Whelan Chambers Rule 3(d);

24

Civ. L.R. 7.1(f)(3)(c). That being said, the Court must still determine whether there is

25

just reason for delay.

26

In light of the circumstances, the Court will grant Defendant’s request for entry of

27

judgment. The appellate issues relating to Plaintiff’s Complaint do not overlap with the

28

issues to be decided on Defendant’s Cross-Complaint and the equities strongly favor
2
18-CV-0450 W (JLB)

1

entering a partial judgment. An appeal by Plaintiff would ask whether this Court abused

2

its discretion in dismissing the Complaint for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b),

3

whereas the Cross-Complaint concerns whether Defendant can recoup what it paid to

4

defend claims that potentially were not covered in the underlying litigation. Additionally,

5

Defendant’s will suffer prejudice in terms of cost and litigation strategy due to delay. See

6

Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 10 (explaining that passage of time is a valid equitable

7

consideration in a Rule 54(b) motion). Therefore, the Court finds no just reason for

8

delay.

9
10

IV.

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion under Rule 54(b) [Doc.

11
12

CONCLUSION & ORDER

79].

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18, 2019

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
18-CV-0450 W (JLB)