Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02380/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02380-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JARRITOS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LOS JARRITOS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-02380 JSW

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

Now before the Court is the motion to alter or amend judgment filed by plaintiff Jarritos,

Inc. (“Plaintiff”). Defendants Los Jarritos, Delores Reyes and Francisco Reyes (collectively,

“Defendants”) filed a statement of non-opposition. The Court finds that this matter is

appropriate for disposition without oral argument and it is hereby deemed submitted. See Civ.

L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing set for June 22, 2007 is HEREBY VACATED. Having

carefully considered the parties’ arguments and relevant legal authority, the Court hereby grants

Plaintiff’s motion. 

On May 2, 2007, the Court entered judgment after granting Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims. The motion, and the order resolving the motion, only

addressed Plaintiff’s claims and did not resolve Defendants’ counter-claims for declaratory

relief. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 54(b) provides in pertinent part:

When more than one claim is presented in an action, . . . or when multiple

parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of final judgment as to

one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express

Case 3:05-cv-02380-JSW Document 166 Filed 06/20/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express

direction for the entry of judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Rule 54(b) is permissive; a court may, in its discretion, certify a

judgment as “final” in order for a party to obtain an interlocutory appeal. A Rule 54(b)

judgment may be entered if an adjudication is a final decision which disposes of an individual

claim on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. See 28

U.S.C. § 1291; Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 866 (1994).

Once the district court has determined that an order is eligible for certification under

Rule 54(b) because it finally disposes of a claim for relief, the court must then determine

whether there is any just reason for delay in entering the order as a judgment. The decision is

discretionary with the district court. Curtiss-Wright v. General Electric, Co., 446 U.S. 1, 10

(1980). The Court’s discretion is to be “exercised in light of ‘judicial administrative interests as

well as the equities involved.’” Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258, 265 (1993) (quoting CurtissWright, 446 U.S. at 8). In reaching a determination, the district court must weigh “the historic

federal policy against piecemeal complaints.” Id. 

The Court finds that here, the order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment

is an order that is eligible for certification under Rule 54(b). Moreover, the Court finds that

there is no just reason for delay in entering the order as a judgment. Accordingly, the Court

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment and will issue an amended judgment in

accordance with this Order. The Court further orders that all further proceedings on this action

in this Court are stayed pending a final determination of Plaintiff’s appeal of the amended

judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02380-JSW Document 166 Filed 06/20/07 Page 2 of 2