Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-00896/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-00896-73/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, et al, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

JAMES C. CASTLE AKA J. CHRISTOPHER 

CASTLE, et al, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 11-CV-896 YGR

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF CREDIT ONE, LLC’S 

MOTION TO REVISE OCTOBER 31, 2014

JUDGMENT 

The Motion Plaintiff Credit One, LLC (“Credit One”) to Revise October 31, 2014 Judgment 

Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is set for hearing on Tuesday, 

February 24, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. Credit One shall be prepared to address the propriety of amending 

the partial judgment against Curtis Guillotte to include a finding of “no just reason for delay” under 

Rule 54(b), or if the partial judgment should instead be vacated. 

In this action, Credit One has alleged liability of other defaulted and non-defaulted 

defendants, including defendants James C. Castle, Oreplex International, and Todd Smith, on the 

same claims concerning the same “Via Divertirse Scheme” alleged against Guillotte. While these 

other defendants are alleged in the Fourth Amended Complaint to be liable for fraud and conspiracy 

to defraud along with Guillotte, their liability has not yet been determined. 

As a general rule, when a plaintiff “alleges that defendants are jointly liable and one of them 

defaults, judgment should not be entered against the defaulting defendant until the matter has been 

adjudicated with regard to all defendants.” In re First T.D. & Inv., Inc., 253 F.3d 520, 532 (9th Cir. 

2001). This rule arises, in part, because “if an action against the answering defendants is decided in 

their favor, then the action should be dismissed against both answering and defaulting defendants.” 

Id. Even if joint liability of the defendants is not alleged, it may be “incongruous and unfair” to 

Case 4:11-cv-00896-YGR Document 772 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 2
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 

allow a default judgment to be entered against one defendant on the same legal theory that is rejected 

as to the answering defendant in the same action. Id. Such incongruities would constitute “just 

reason for delay” in entering an enforceable partial judgment before all liabilities are determined. 

Credit One, and all other Plaintiffs, shall also be prepared to address their plan and order for 

proceeding as to the defaulted and non-defaulted defendants, including: (1) whether their alleged 

liability is joint, several, or joint and several; and (2) whether a partial judgment prior to resolution of 

the claims against all remaining defendants would be proper. 

Alternatively, Plaintiffs may submit a written response on these issues no later than 

February 20, 2015. If the Court is satisfied with the written response, it may vacate the hearing on 

February 24, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: February 13, 2015 

____________________________________ 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:11-cv-00896-YGR Document 772 Filed 02/13/15 Page 2 of 2