United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
ORDER GRANTING SHREE JALARAM DEFENDANTS'
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT RE: ECF NO.
BEELER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Joseph Thomas filed this lawsuit against Randall Shaw, Mwangi
Mukami, Jeffrey Scarcello, Tenderloin Housing Clinic Inc.,
Balwantsinh D. Thakor, Kiransinh Thakor, and Shree Jalaram
Lodging LP (erroneously sued as Shree Jalaram
LLC). The Thakors and Shree Jalaram Lodging
(collectively, the “Shree Jalaram defendants”)
moved to dismiss, and on August 1, 2019, the court granted
their motion, finding that Mr. Thomas had released his claims
against them in prior settlement agreements and that his
claims were barred by res judicata. Thomas v. Shree
Jalaram LLC, No. 18-cv-06409-LB, 2019 WL 3503086 (N.D.
Cal. Aug. 1, 2019). The other defendants did not move to
dismiss, and this case will continue against them.
Shree Jalaram defendants now move under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b) for entry of judgment with respect to
them. No party filed an
opposition. The court can decide the motion without
oral argument. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The court grants
the Shree Jalaram defendants' motion for entry of
54(b) provides that “[w]hen an action presents more
than one claim for relief - whether as a claim, counterclaim,
crossclaim, or third-party claim - 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.” In evaluating a motion under Rule
54(b), a 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.'” Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d
873, 878 (9th Cir. 2005) (some nested internal quotation
marks omitted) (quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen.
Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980)). “Then it must
determine whether there is any just reason for delay.”
Id. “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.'” Id. (some nested
internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 8).
court's order dismissing Mr. Thomas's claims against
the Shree Jalaram defendants is an ultimate disposition of
those claims. And the court finds there is no just reason to
delay entering a judgment with respect to the Shree Jalaram
defendants. Any further developments with respect to Mr.
Thomas's claims against the remaining defendants would
not affect the release and res judicata that bars his claims
against the Shree Jalaram defendants. Cf.
AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d
946, 954 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming Rule 54(b) certification
of judgment where “[t]he district court found that
there was no risk of duplicative effort by the courts because
any subsequent judgments in this case would not vacate its
judgment on [the at-issue] counterclaim”). And entering
judgment with respect to the Shree Jalaram defendants would
relieve them of the need to continue to monitor this case and
thus free them from further unduly burdensome litigation.
Cf. Noel v. Hall, 568 F.3d 743, 747 (9th Cir. 2009)
(affirming Rule 54(b) certification of judgment where doing
so would “free [defendant] from further unduly
burdensome litigation”). The court thus grants the
Shree Jalaram defendants' motion and enters judgment in
their favor pursuant to Rule 54(b). Cf, e.g., Hung v.
Tribal Techs., No. C 11-04990 WHA, 2014 WL 6065620, at
*3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2014) (where plaintiffs claims against
one defendant were barred by res judicata, entering Rule
54(b) judgment for that defendant while case against other
defendant continued), aff'd, 682 Fed.Appx. 602
(9th Cir. 2017).
IS SO ORDERED.
 Amend. Compl. - ECF No. 46. Citations
refer to material in the Electronic Case File
(“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the
ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.
 Order - ECF No. 82.
 Shree Jalaram Defs. Mot. for Entry of
Judgment - ECF No. 83.