Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04301/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04301-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 *E-filed 8/16/07*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SOFTWAREWORKS GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

IHOSTING, INC., WEBHOSTING PLUS,

INC., and MICHAEL KOFMAN,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. C06-04301 HRL

PARTIAL FINAL JUDGMENT

PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 54(b)

This court struck the answer and dismissed the counterclaims of Defendants, IHosting,

Inc., WebHosting Plus, Inc. and Michael Kofman. [Docket No. 65] Default was then entered by

the clerk. Thereafter, Plaintiff Softwareworks Group ("SWG") requested, and this court

entered, default judgment and judgment. [Docket No. 74]. The judgment entered was therefore

not based on an adjudication on the merits after trial. Rather, it was based on Plaintiff's proof of

entitlement to the damages awarded, plus costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to contract. 

However, this judgment did not encompass all the claims in the complaint against all of the

defendants. As such, Plaintiff cannot collect on the judgment unless it is deemed a partial final

judgment (PFJ) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). 

//

Case 5:06-cv-04301-HRL Document 79 Filed 08/16/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Particularly, where Plaintiff was not paid in full for the sale of substantially all of its

assets to Defendants, and then the corporate defendants announced cessation of business,

while the individual defendant filed for bankruptcy. 

2

A PFJ is justified here because judgment could not be entered against Defendant

Michael Kofman (owner of the corporate defendants), as his bankruptcy proceedings stay this

matter as to him. Furthermore, the PFJ is justified because Plaintiff's single unresolved tort

claim is not inextricably intertwined as a matter of fact and law with the contract claims

resolved by this judgment. (That claim was not adjudicated because Kofman is alleged to be

primarily responsible.) 

Furthermore, PFJ is not prejudicial to Defendants and will not interfere with further

proceedings pertaining to either default or the remaining tort claim. It would be inequitable to

deprive Plaintiff of the benefit of instituting a timely collection process for the judgment

amount, given the substantial value and liquidated nature of the resolved contract claims. This

is true, especially given that any further proceedings would not occur for some time, if at all. In

collecting a judgment of this nature and under these circumstances, time is of the essence.1

 If

able to act upon the judgment now, Plaintiff will be afforded an opportunity to earn a financial

return greater than the prejudgment interest awarded by judgment. 

JUDGMENT 

Accordingly, this court now issues a Partial Final Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 54(b) against Defendants IHosting, Inc. and WebHosting Plus, Inc., in the

amount of $697,103.87 plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. While recognizing that

the judgment adjudicates fewer than all of plaintiff's claims against fewer than all of the

defendants, the court expressly determines there is no just reason for delay and directs the entry

of this partial final judgment. 

Dated: 8/15/07 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-04301-HRL Document 79 Filed 08/16/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

Lael D. Andara landara@ropers.com, aslanlair@ropers.com, lkoozmin@ropers.com,

mmcpherson@ropers.com 

Robert P. Andris randris@ropers.com, lkoozmin@ropers.com, mmcpherson@ropers.com 

Robert Lloyd Maines maines@robertmaineslaw.com, jmills@OMM.com 

Counsel are responsible for transmitting this order to co-counsel who have not signed up

for e-filing.

Dated: 8/16/07 /s/ KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:06-cv-04301-HRL Document 79 Filed 08/16/07 Page 3 of 3