Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01730/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01730-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

1

3:15-cv-01730

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN PANGELINAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

AZTEC CONTRACTORS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-01730

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION [Doc. 26] FOR ENTRY OF

PARTIAL JUDGMENT

Pending before this Court is Plaintiff Allen Pangelinan’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for

entry of partial judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The Court 

decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L. R. 

7.1(d)(1). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:15-cv-01730-L-KSC Document 28 Filed 05/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:15-cv-01730

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

I. BACKGROUND

On August 28, 2014, Plaintiff attended his son’s graduation from boot camp at the 

Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego (“MCRD”). While attending, Plaintiff sought 

shade underneath a palm tree. A large piece of the tree, weighing five to six pounds, fell 

onto his neck and right shoulder, causing him injury. On October 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed 

a claim with the United States Marine Corps seeking compensation for his injury. The 

Marine Corps denied this claim on February 5, 2015. Subsequently, on August 4, 2015, 

Plaintiff filed a Complaint [Doc. 1] with this Court. On April 11, 2016, the Court granted 

Defendants’ first Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 4] Plaintiff’s Complaint, allowing leave to 

amend. On June 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) [Doc. 15] 

containing two causes of action. The first cause of action alleged negligence on a 

premises liability theory against Defendant United States. The second cause of action 

alleges negligence against Defendant Aztec Contractors, Inc., a business entity contracted 

by Defendant United States to maintain the trees on its property. On December 2, 2016, 

the Court granted Defendant United States’ (“Defendant”) second Motion to Dismiss 

[Doc. 16] with prejudice. Plaintiff now moves unopposed for an entry of final judgment 

pursuant to Rule 54(b) on their first cause of action against Defendant United States. 

(See Mot. [Doc. 26].) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 54(b), in an action presenting more than one claim for relief or 

involving multiple parties, “the court may direct entry of final judgment as to one or 

more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if it expressly determines that there is no 

just reason for delay.” 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 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981). As a general 

Case 3:15-cv-01730-L-KSC Document 28 Filed 05/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:15-cv-01730

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

matter, partial judgment under Rule 54(b) is inappropriate where the claims stem from 

the same transaction or occurrence. Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC., 422 F.3d 873, 879 (9th 

Cir. 2005). 

I. DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff contends that the Court should direct an entry of final judgment on the 

dismissed claim. Plaintiff’s argues that, should this Court’s dismissal of the first cause of 

action later get reversed, there would be unnecessary duplication of work product 

because “Plaintiff anticipates a number of motions and discovery which will be relevant 

to [both causes of action].” (Mot. 3:17–18.) The problem with this argument is that it 

actually favors denial of Plaintiff’s motion. Because the dismissed cause of action and 

the pending cause of action allege similar claims based on the same incident, allowing 

Plaintiff to appeal the partial dismissal now would likely require the Ninth Circuit to 

review the same facts and issues in a later appeal taken by whichever party ultimately 

loses on the remaining claim. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to 

demonstrate that there is no just reason for delay. 

II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for entry of partial 

judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-01730-L-KSC Document 28 Filed 05/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3