Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02003/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02003-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

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

07cv2003

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY, a

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

KING SPORTS, INC., a Georgia

corporation, et al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv2003-L(POR)

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT

M&M GOLF, INC. ON THE

STIPULATED TERMS AND

DENYING IN PART JOINT

MOTION

On July 28, 2008, Plaintiff and Defendant M&M Golf, Inc. (“M&M”) filed a Joint

Motion and Stipulation Regarding Final Judgment, Permanent Injunction and Order Thereon –

M&M Golf, Inc. and Callaway Golf Company (“Joint Motion”). For the reasons which follow,

the Joint Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

In this patent and trademark infringement, breach of contract, and business tort action,

Plaintiff and Defendant M&M entered into a settlement agreement. The parties stipulated to

certain findings of fact, a permanent injunction against M&M, and entry of a final judgment. A

similar settlement agreement was entered into between Plaintiff and Defendants AT Golf and

Kevin Chang (see Order filed May 5, 2008) and between Plaintiff and King Sports, Inc. (see

Order filed July 15, 2008). Although Plaintiff has now settled its dispute with all named

Defendants, it appears that it intends to add two additional defendants to the action. (See Joint

Case 3:07-cv-02003-L-POR Document 27 Filed 08/04/08 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 07cv2003

Motion and Stipulation Regarding Final Judgment, Permanent Injunction and Order Thereon –

AMPRINS Golf, Inc., Prins Chang and Callaway Golf Company filed Jul. 28, 2008 and order

filed concurrently herewith.) To give Plaintiff the opportunity to amend complaint and add

additional party defendants, the court declines at this time to enter final judgment.

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

Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When an action

presents more than one claim 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. . . .

The power to enter partial final judgment "is largely discretionary, 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 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). 

The parties stipulated, without elaborating, that “there is no just reason for delay in

entering a final judgment.” This is insufficient for the court to make the necessary specific

findings outlined in Morrison-Knudsen. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The parties’ request for entry of final judgment is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE to incorporating the terms of their settlement into the final judgment at the

conclusion of the case in its entirety. 

Case 3:07-cv-02003-L-POR Document 27 Filed 08/04/08 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 07cv2003

2. All claims asserted against Defendant M&M are hereby DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE on the terms specified in the Joint Motion filed July 28, 2008 and in the parties’

settlement agreement.

3. The case shall remain open for seven calendar days after the date this order is stamped

filed to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint and name additional defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 4, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LOUISA S. PORTER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-02003-L-POR Document 27 Filed 08/04/08 Page 3 of 3