Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05424/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05424-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1121 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

Case No. C 03-5424 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE PROPOSED JUDGMENT

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 7/26/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SUNCREST ENTERPRISE, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 03-5424 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE PROPOSED JUDGMENT

SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF ON

JULY 17, 2006

 

On July 17, 2006, Plaintiff submitted a proposed judgment against Defendants Suncrest

Enterprise and Yi-Ling Chen. On July 20, 2006, Defendants filed an objection, pointing out that

the proposed judgment is premature, because Plaintiff has not yet dismissed its remaining claims

as it has indicated that it would, and because Defendants’ cross-claims have not yet been

resolved. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), a court may “direct the entry of a

final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express

determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of

judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 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.” Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. Archer, 655

Case 5:03-cv-05424-JF Document 169 Filed 07/26/06 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

Case No. C 03-5424 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE PROPOSED JUDGMENT

(JFLC2)

F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981). Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that judgment pursuant to

Rule 54(b) is appropriate in this case, the Court declines to sign the proposed judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 7/26/06

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-05424-JF Document 169 Filed 07/26/06 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

Case No. C 03-5424 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE PROPOSED JUDGMENT

(JFLC2)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Jennifer N. Chiarelli Jchiarelli@perkinscoie.com, skumagai@perkinscoie.com

John C. Gorman jgorman@gormanmiller.com

Craig Alan Hansen chansen@gormanmiller.com

Andrew K. Jacobson andy@bayoaklaw.com

Shawn T. Leuthold leuthold@aol.com 

Case 5:03-cv-05424-JF Document 169 Filed 07/26/06 Page 3 of 3