Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-01541/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-01541-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE VALENZUELA DE LEON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FCA US LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-01541-JCS 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT UNDER FRCP 

54(B)

Re: Dkt. No. 91

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Judgment Under FRCP 54(b) 

(“Motion”). In the Motion, Plaintiffs ask the Court to immediately enter final judgment as to their 

claim for fraudulent concealment (“Claim Three”) on the ground that the Court has already 

granted summary judgment as to Claim Three and there is “no just reason for delay” with respect 

to entry of judgment on that claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Although Defendant does not 

oppose the Motion, the Court declines to enter final judgment on Claim Three under Rule 54(b). 

In determining whether a claim should be certified for entry of final judgment under Rule 

54(b), the district court “must take into account judicial administrative interests as well as the 

equities involved.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980). In Claim Three,

Plaintiffs asserted that FCA intentionally concealed a known defect from Plaintiffs when it sold 

them their vehicle. In Claims One and Two, which are scheduled for trial in November of this 

year, Plaintiffs assert that FCA violated the Song-Beverly Act. These claims will require the jury 

to determine, among other things, whether FCA sold Plaintiffs a vehicle that was defective and/or 

did not live up to implied warranties. If either side appeals the judgment entered as to Claims One 

and Two following the upcoming trial, that appeal will likely involve substantial overlap with 

Plaintiffs’ appeal of the Court’s judgment on Claim Three. Consequently, there is a significant 

Case 3:17-cv-01541-JCS Document 94 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

likelihood that allowing the parties to pursue separate appeals will result in inefficient use of 

judicial resources. The Court further finds that the equities do not support entry of judgment on 

Claim Three because trial on the remaining claims is less than six months away. Accordingly, the 

Motion is DENIED. The Court vacates the Motion hearing set for June 14, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. 

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2019

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-01541-JCS Document 94 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 2