Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06409/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06409-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

ORDER – No. 18-cv-06409-LB

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

San Francisco Division

JOSEPH THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHREE JALARAM LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06409-LB

ORDER GRANTING SHREE 

JALARAM DEFENDANTS’

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENTRY 

OF JUDGMENT

Re: ECF No. 83

Plaintiff Joseph Thomas filed this lawsuit against Randall Shaw, Mwangi Mukami, Jeffrey 

Scarcello, Tenderloin Housing Clinic Inc., Balwantsinh D. Thakor, Kiransinh Thakor, and Shree 

Jalaram Lodging LP (erroneously sued as Shree Jalaram LLC).1 The Thakors and Shree Jalaram 

Lodging (collectively, the “Shree Jalaram defendants”) moved to dismiss, and on August 1, 2019, 

the court granted their motion, finding that Mr. Thomas had released his claims against them in 

prior settlement agreements and that his claims were barred by res judicata. Thomas v. Shree 

Jalaram LLC, No. 18-cv-06409-LB, 2019 WL 3503086 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2019).2 The other 

defendants did not move to dismiss, and this case will continue against them.

 

1 Amend. Compl. – ECF No. 46. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); 

pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

2 Order – ECF No. 82.

Case 3:18-cv-06409-LB Document 84 Filed 09/09/19 Page 1 of 3
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06409-LB 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

The Shree Jalaram defendants now move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) for 

entry of judgment with respect to them.3 No party filed an opposition.4 The court can decide the 

motion without oral argument. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The court grants the Shree Jalaram 

defendants’ motion for entry of judgment.

Rule 54(b) provides that “[w]hen an action presents more than one claim for relief — whether 

as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim — 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.” In evaluating a 

motion under Rule 54(b), a court “must first determine that it has rendered a ‘final judgment,’ that 

is, a judgment that is ‘an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a 

multiple claims action.’” Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir. 2005) (some 

nested internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 

U.S. 1, 7 (1980)). “Then it must determine whether there is any just reason for delay.” Id. “It is left 

to the sound judicial discretion of the district court to determine the ‘appropriate time’ when each 

final decision in a multiple claims action is ready for appeal. This discretion is to be exercised ‘in 

the interest of sound judicial administration.’” Id. (some nested internal quotation marks omitted) 

(quoting Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 8).

The court’s order dismissing Mr. Thomas’s claims against the Shree Jalaram defendants is an 

ultimate disposition of those claims. And the court finds there is no just reason to delay entering a 

judgment with respect to the Shree Jalaram defendants. Any further developments with respect to 

Mr. Thomas’s claims against the remaining defendants would not affect the release and res 

judicata that bars his claims against the Shree Jalaram defendants. Cf. AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. 

Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 954 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming Rule 54(b) certification of 

judgment where “[t]he district court found that there was no risk of duplicative effort by the courts 

because any subsequent judgments in this case would not vacate its judgment on [the at-issue] 

 

3 Shree Jalaram Defs. Mot. for Entry of Judgment – ECF No. 83.

4

See Docket.

Case 3:18-cv-06409-LB Document 84 Filed 09/09/19 Page 2 of 3
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06409-LB 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

counterclaim”). And entering judgment with respect to the Shree Jalaram defendants would relieve 

them of the need to continue to monitor this case and thus free them from further unduly 

burdensome litigation. Cf. Noel v. Hall, 568 F.3d 743, 747 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming Rule 54(b) 

certification of judgment where doing so would “free[] [defendant] from further unduly 

burdensome litigation”). The court thus grants the Shree Jalaram defendants’ motion and enters 

judgment in their favor pursuant to Rule 54(b). Cf., e.g., Hung v. Tribal Techs., No. C 11-04990 

WHA, 2014 WL 6065620, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2014) (where plaintiff’s claims against one 

defendant were barred by res judicata, entering Rule 54(b) judgment for that defendant while case 

against other defendant continued), aff’d, 682 F. App’x 602 (9th Cir. 2017).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06409-LB Document 84 Filed 09/09/19 Page 3 of 3