Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01880/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01880-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

18cv1880-L-WVG

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

PROTECTION CAPITAL, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

IP CO., LLC et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv1880-L-WVG

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR AN ORDER 

CERTIFYING PARTIAL 

JUDGMENT AND DENYING AS 

MOOT DEFENDANT GLOCOM, 

INC.’S MOTION TO SEVER OR 

BIFURCATE

(ECF NOS. 55, 62)

Pending before the Court in this breach of contract and tort action are Defendant 

Glocom, Inc.’s (“Glocom”) motion to sever pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

21 or, alternatively, bifurcate pursuant to Rule 42 (ECF No. 55), and Plaintiff Protection 

Capital, LLC’s motion for an order certifying judgment against Defendant IP Co., LLC 

(“IPCO”) as final pursuant to Rule 54(b) (ECF No. 62). Plaintiff does not oppose 

Glocom’s motion if Plaintiff’s motion is denied,. (See ECF No. 57.) IPCO filed a notice 

of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 63) and Glocom did not respond. For 

the reasons with follow, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Glocom’s motion is denied as 

moot.

/ / / / /

Case 3:18-cv-01880-L-WVG Document 67 Filed 11/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18cv1880-L-WVG

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

This action arises from IPCO’s failure to continue making payments to Plaintiff 

pursuant to a Convertible Promissory Note and a Note Purchase Agreement executed on 

April 30, 2007 (collectively, “Agreement”). In 2017, Glocom acquired an interest in 

IPCO. After the acquisition, IPCO stopped making payments as required by the 

Agreement. In its operative complaint, Plaintiff alleged claims for breach of contract 

against IPCO, accounting against IPCO, declaratory relief against IPCO, and tortious 

interference with contract against Glocom. (ECF No. 31.) Subsequently, Plaintiff moved 

for summary adjudication of all claims against IPCO and prevailed. (See Order Granting 

Pl’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 56 (“Summary Judgment Order”).) The sole 

claim against Glocom was not included in Plaintiff’s motion and remains pending.

The parties are in agreement that Plaintiff’s claims against Glocom should proceed 

separately from its claims against IPCO. Glocom filed a motion to sever or bifurcate the 

claim for interference from the remainder of the case. Separately, Plaintiff filed a motion 

pursuant to Rule 54 to certify a final judgment on its claims against IPCO, thus 

effectively separating the claim against Glocom from the claims against IPCO.

Rule 54(b) provides in pertinent part as follows:

Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When an 

action presents more than one claim for relief . . . 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. Otherwise, any order or 

other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the 

claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end 

the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time 

before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' 

rights and liabilities.

(Emphasis in original.) The power to enter partial final judgment is “to be exercised in 

light of judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved, and giving due 

weight to the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals." Reiter v. Cooper, 507 

/ / / / /

Case 3:18-cv-01880-L-WVG Document 67 Filed 11/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18cv1880-L-WVG

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

U.S. 258, 265 (1993)(citations and quotation marks omitted). In Morrison-Knudsen Co., 

Inc. v. Archer, the Ninth Circuit elaborated on the requirements of Rule 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. The 

trial court should not direct entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) unless it has 

made specific findings setting forth the reasons for its order. Those findings 

should include a determination whether, upon any review of the judgment 

entered under the rule, the appellate court will be required to address legal or 

factual issues that are similar to those contained in the claims still pending 

before the trial court. A similarity of legal or factual issues will weigh 

heavily against entry of judgment under the rule, and in such cases a Rule 

54(b) order will be proper only where necessary to avoid a harsh and unjust 

result, documented by further and specific findings.

655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873 (9th 

Cir. 2005).

All liability issues against IPCO have been resolved on summary judgment. 

Further, the Court awarded requested accounting and declaratory relief as well as breach 

of contract damages through 2018. (Summary Judgment Order at 9.) The parties have 

stipulated to damages through the first quarter of 2020, and IPCO has made four 

payments toward damages and interest. (See Decl. of Stephen T. Erb, ECF No. 57-1; 

Decl. of Christopher B. Ghio, ECF No. 63-1; Pl.’s Supp. Reply, ECF No. 66.) 

The issues raised by Plaintiff’s claim against Glocom for interference with contract 

do not substantially overlap with the breach of contract claim or the derivative accounting 

and declaratory relief claims against IPCO. The only disputed issue with respect to these 

claims was IPCO’s unconscionability defense, which was adjudicated on summary 

judgment. The unconscionability analysis addressed the circumstances between Plaintiff 

and IPCO at the time of contract formation in 2007; whereas, the interference claim is 

based on the facts surrounding Glocom’s acquisition of an interest in IPCO in 2017. The 

only overlapping legal issue is contract validity, an issue IPCO did not dispute at 

Case 3:18-cv-01880-L-WVG Document 67 Filed 11/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18cv1880-L-WVG

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

summary judgment. Accordingly, should any party choose to appeal, the possibility of 

duplicative factual or legal issues on appeal is slim and does not weigh against entering a 

partial judgment.

There appears to be no just cause for delay in reducing the adjudicated claims to 

judgment. Given IPCO’s past breach, Plaintiff desires to enforce its right to payment of 

previously due amounts. Plaintiff also wishes to rely on the judgment in this case as res 

judicata if IPCO breaches the Agreement again in the future. A delay in entering 

judgment until adjudication of the tort claim against Glocom could potentially impair 

Plaintiff’s ability to collect on the already adjudicated claims against IPCO. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the risks of overlapping appeals is 

outbalanced by Plaintiff’s need for entry of judgment against IPCO. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s motion for an order certifying judgment under Rule 54(b) against IPCO is 

granted. Glocom’s motion to sever or bifurcate is denied as moot. No later than 

November 12, 2020, Plaintiff shall file a notice of proposed judgment signed by 

Defendants as to form. A proposed judgment shall be submitted concurrently in 

compliance with Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures § 2(h). 

Any objections to the proposed judgment shall be filed no later than November 17, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-01880-L-WVG Document 67 Filed 11/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4