PET GIFTS USA, LLC v. IMAGINE THIS COMPANY, LLC et al
Filing
122
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Plaintiff's 119 Motion for Final Judgment is denied. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 8/13/2018. (mps)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
PET GIFTS USA, LLC,
Civil Action No.
3:1 4-cv-3 884(PGS)
Plaintiff
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
v.
IMAGINE THIS COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Pet Gifts USA’s Motion for Final Judgment (Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(b)). (ECF No. 119). Defendants oppose this motion because there are remaining
counterclaims to be litigated and which may result in piecemeal litigation and appeals.
BACKGROUND
The facts have been recounted in the Court’s March 29, 2018 Memorandum and Order. At
its core, the case involves allegations by two competing printing companies involved in the
business of creating novelty car magnets (such as dog bones), that each had copied the other’s
purported designs. In the Court’s prior Memorandum and Order, it granted Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment dismissal of Count VI of Plaintifrs Complaint,’ which alleged trade dress
infringement under N.J.S.A.
§ 56:4-1. As a result, Defendants’ counterclaims, alleging trade dress
infringement, defamation, and trade libel, remain. These counterclaims all arise from the same
factual allegations discussed in the summary judgment memorandum.
‘Counts I through V of Plaintiff’s Complaint had previously been dismissed with prejudice. (ECF
No. 72).
LEGAL STANDARD
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides a mechanism for rendering a partial final
judgment as to some, but not all, parties or claims in a single action.” Hill v. City ofScranton, 411
F.3d 118, 124 (3d Cir. 2005). The Rule provides, “[w]hen an action presents more than one claim
for 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). “A decision to certify a final decision
under Rule 54(b) involves two separate findings: (1) there has been a final judgment on the merits,
i.e., an ultimate disposition on a cognizable claim for relief; and (2) there is ‘no just reason for
delay.” Berckeley mv. Grp., Ltd. v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 202 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Curtiss
Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Corp., 446 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1980)). “Courts must use their discretion to
ensure that application of Rule 54(b) ‘effectively preserves the historic federal policy against
piecemeal appeals.” SEC v. Lucent Techs., No. 04-23 15, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107098, at *10
(D.N.J. Nov. 16, 2009) (quoting Curtiss- Wright, 446 U.S. at 8). The Third Circuit has cautioned
district courts to be “conservative” in granting Rule 54(b) certifications and to consider five factors
in making its determination:
(1) the relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims; (2) the
possibility that the need for review might or might not be mooted by future
developments in the district court; (3) the possibility that the reviewing court might
be obliged to consider the same issue a second time; (4) the presence or absence of
a claim or counterclaim which could result in set-off against the judgment sought
to be made final; (5) miscellaneous factors such as delay, economic and solvency
considerations, shortening the time of trial, frivolity of competing claims, expense,
and the like.
Berckeley mv. Grp., Ltd., 455 F.3d at 203 (quoting Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Elec.
Co., 521 F.2d 360, 364 (3d Cir. 1975)); see also Gerardi v. Pelullo, 16 F.3d 1363, 137 1-72 (3d
Cir. 1994).
2
DISCUSSION
Here, when considering the factors discussed, the Court sees no reason to grant Rule 54(b)
relief. First and foremost, the dismissed claims in Plaintiffs Complaint are all related and based
on the same factual allegations that give rise to Defendants’ counterclaims; this weighs against
granting final judgment. See Gerardi, 16 F.3d at 1372. Second, given that the facts underlying
Plaintiff’s Complaint are identical and intertwined with the allegations presented in Defendants’
counterclaims, to grant Rule 54(b) relief at this juncture implicates that the Third Circuit will hear
this matter twice. Third, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any prejudice if the Court were to deny
its request. Simply put, “this case is not the ‘infrequent harsh case’ for which Rule 54(b) was
adopted, and the greater interest of judicial economy controls. Church & Dwight Co. v. Abbott
Labs., No. 05-2142, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26718, at *9..1o (D.N.J. Apr. 10, 2007) (quoting
Panichella v. Penn. R.R. Co., 252 F.2d 452, 455 (3d Cir. 1958)). As such, Plaintiffs motion is
denied.
ORDER
Having carefully reviewed and taken into consideration the submissions of the parties, as
well as the arguments and exhibits therein presented, and for good cause shown, and for all of the
foregoing reasons,
1115 on this
13th
day of August, 2018,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Final Judgment (ECF No. 119) is DENIED.
M7L
PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?