Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01519/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01519-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF CAROL KLIGGE, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

FIDELITY MORTGAGE OF )

CALIFORNIA, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

)

____________________________________)

CIV F 05-1519 AWI DLB

ORDER DIRECTING ENTRY

OF FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO

ABILITY MORTGAGE, INC.

Document # 109

This is an action by the estate of Carol Kligge (“Plaintiff”) against a number of

institutions for the alleged failure of the institutions to adequately protect Carol Kligge’s

financial interests and against several individuals for fraud, or failure to protect from the fraud of

others. In an order filed August 25, 2006, the court entered final judgment pursuant to Rule

54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to defendants Union Bank of California, N.A.,

Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Fidelity

Mortgage of California, Inc., and American Express Travel Related Services, Inc. Doc. # 104. 

The same order granted the motion of defendant Ability Mortgage, Inc. (“Ability”) for judgment

on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c). In this order, the court continues the process of

termination of the financial entity defendants by granting the unopposed motion of Ability for

entry of final judgment pursuant to rule 54(b). 

Case 1:05-cv-01519-AWI-DLB Document 115 Filed 11/03/06 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

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The factual background of this action has been set forth in the court’s prior orders and

need not be repeated here. Plaintiff Estate of Carol Kligge (“Plaintiff”) filed its First Amended

Complaint (“FAC”) on January 20, 2006. Ability Mortgage is not a named defendant either in

the original complaint or in the FAC. Ability Mortgage alleges it was served with a complaint

and summons on November 18, 2005, as a DOE defendant. Ability Mortgage was not added

when the case was removed to this court nor when the FAC was filed. The FAC does not

specifically allege any claims against Ability or allege any conduct that could be the basis of a

claim. For this reason, the court granted Ability’s unopposed motion for judgment on the

pleadings in its order of August 25, 2006. On September 19, 2006, Ability filed the instant

motion for entry of final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). No opposition has been received as of

the date of this order.

LEGAL STANDARD

Normally, a final judgment is not entered in an action until all claims have been resolved. 

However, Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for the entry of final

judgment with respect to less than all parties or claims in an action if the court makes “an express

determination that there is no just reason for delay” and expressly directs “entry of judgment.” 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). In making a determination under Rule 54(b), the court must first determine

that it is dealing with a final judgment, which means a decision that is “an ultimate disposition of

an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v.

General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 436

(1956). Second, the court must determine whether there is any just reason for delay.

Curtiss-Wright Corp., 446 U.S. at 7. Simply stated, Rule 54(b) requires the presence of three

conditions: (1) multiple claims or multiple parties; (2) at least one claim or the rights and

liabilities of one party have been finally decided; and (3) and there is no just reason for any delay

in entering judgment and allowing an appeal. See 10 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice

Case 1:05-cv-01519-AWI-DLB Document 115 Filed 11/03/06 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

and Procedure: Civil 3d § 2656 (1998).

DISCUSSION

The FAC names twelve individual defendants plus DOES 1-100, and alleges a total of

eight claims for relief. Thus, the first requirement of multiple parties for entry of judgment under

Rule 54 is satisfied.

As previously stated, the FAC does not allege any specific claims against Ability, nor

does it allege any conduct that could be considered the basis of a claim. The FAC only makes

the general, conclusory allegation that DOE defendants are responsible for damages to Plaintiff. 

The court granted Ability’s motion for judgment on the pleadings because Plaintiff failed to state

any claim against Ability that complied with the minimum notice pleading standard of Rule

8(a)(2). Thus, with respect to Ability, all Plaintiff’s claims have been finally settled. 

Plaintiff has had abundant opportunity to respond to Ability’s motion for judgment on the

pleadings and to oppose the instant motion for entry of final judgment. The court can only

presume at this point that Plaintiff has failed to state any claim against Ability because there is no

set of facts that can be alleged in good faith that would support any of the claims set forth in the

FAC as to Ability. The court therefore concludes there is no reason to delay entry of final

judgment in favor of Ability.

THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Ability’s

motion for entry of final judgment is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment in favor of defendant Ability Mortgage.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01519-AWI-DLB Document 115 Filed 11/03/06 Page 3 of 3