Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02003/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02003-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

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

07cv2003

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY, a

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

KING SPORTS, INC., a Georgia

corporation, et al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv2003-L(POR)

ORDER DISMISSING

DEFENDANTS AT GOLF AND

KEVIN CHANG ON THE

STIPULATED TERMS AND

DENYING IN PART JOINT

MOTION FOR A PARTIAL

JUDGMENT

On April 24, 2008, Plaintiff and Defendants AT Golf and Kevin Chang filed a Joint

Motion for Permanent Injunction Based on Stipulation After Settlement (“Joint Motion” and

“Stipulation,” respectively). For the reasons which follow, the Joint Motion is GRANTED IN

PART AND DENIED IN PART.

In this patent and trademark infringement, breach of contract, and business tort action,

Plaintiff and Defendants AT Golf and Kevin Chang entered into a settlement agreement and

Stipulation. The parties stipulated to certain findings of fact, a permanent injunction against AT

Golf and Kevin Chang, and entry of a final judgment. Although these parties have settled their

dispute, the case continues against Defendants King Sports, Inc. and M&M Golf, Inc. who are

not parties to the Stipulation.

/ / / / /

Case 3:07-cv-02003-L-POR Document 18 Filed 05/05/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2 07cv2003

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides in pertinent part:

Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When an action

presents more than one claim 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. . . .

The power to enter partial final judgment "is largely discretionary, to be exercised in light of

judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved, and giving due weight to the

historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals." Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258, 265

(1993)(citations and quotation marks omitted). In Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. Archer, the

Ninth Circuit elaborated on the requirements of Rule 54(b):

Judgments under Rule 54(b) must be reserved for the unusual case in which the

costs and risks of multiplying the number of proceedings and of overcrowding the

appellate docket are outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for an early and

separate judgment as to some claims or parties. The trial court should not direct

entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) unless it has made specific findings setting

forth the reasons for its order. Those findings should include a determination

whether, upon any review of the judgment entered under the rule, the appellate

court will be required to address legal or factual issues that are similar to those

contained in the claims still pending before the trial court. A similarity of legal or

factual issues will weigh heavily against entry of judgment under the rule, and in

such cases a Rule 54(b) order will be proper only where necessary to avoid a harsh

and unjust result, documented by further and specific findings.

655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981). 

The parties stipulated, without elaborating, that “there is no just reason for delay in

entering a final judgment.” This is insufficient for the court to make the necessary specific

findings outlined in Morrison-Knudsen. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The parties’ request for entry of final judgment is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE to incorporating the terms of their Stipulation into the final judgment at the

conclusion of the case in its entirety. 

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

Case 3:07-cv-02003-L-POR Document 18 Filed 05/05/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3 07cv2003

2. All claims asserted against Defendants AT Golf and Kevin Chang are hereby

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE on the terms specified in the Stipulation filed April 24,

2008 and in the parties’ settlement agreement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 5, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LOUISA S. PORTER.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-02003-L-POR Document 18 Filed 05/05/08 Page 3 of 3