Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02222/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02222-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION,

NO. CIV. S-03-2222 WBS PAN

Plaintiff, 

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RE: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT UNDER

RULE 54(B)

NEW WEST PETROLEUM L.P., NEW

WEST PETROLEUM, LLC, NEW WEST

PETROLEUM, NEW WEST STATIONS,

INC. and NEW WEST LLC

Defendants.

-----------------------------

AND RELATED THIRD-PARTY

CLAIMS, CROSS-CLAIMS AND

COUNTERCLAIMS

----oo0oo----

In light of this court’s June 7, 2005 order, defendant

New West Stations, Inc., pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 54(b), asks the court to issue a final judgment in its

favor of the claims against it by plaintiff Exxon Mobil

Corporation. 

Also in light of that order, counterdefendants New West

Petroleum, LLC and New West Petroleum L.P. move the court,

Case 2:03-cv-02222-WBS-EFB Document 217 Filed 07/06/05 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

1 The New West parties’ moving papers are in the form of

an order prepared for the court to sign. The New West parties

make no arguments in favor of their Rule 54(b) motion.

2

pursuant to Rule 54(b), to issue a final judgment in their favor

as to the claims against these parties by counterclaimant Sartaj

Singh Bains.1

“[T]he court may direct the entry of a final judgment

as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties

only upon an express 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)(emphasis added). The entry of

judgment as to certain claims makes those claims immediately

appealable as final judgments and creates the possibility of

piecemeal appeals. There is an historic federal policy against

piecemeal appeals. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen’l Elec. Co., 446

U.S. 1, 8 (1980). Therefore, when considering whether there are

no just reasons to delay the appeal of individual final

judgments, “a district court must take into account judicial

administrative interests as well as the equities involved.” Id.

at 8. 

In this case, should the court issue final judgment

under Rule 54(b) as to some New West entities, the possibility of

piecemeal appeals is real. Due to the close interrelationship of

the New West entities, (see June 7, 2005 Order at 8-9), judicial

administrative interests tip the balance heavily in favor of

hearing any appeals by the New West entities, or by Exxon or

Bains against the New West entities, at the same time. Further,

the New West entities that make the motion will suffer no

Case 2:03-cv-02222-WBS-EFB Document 217 Filed 07/06/05 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

injustice as a result of delay. Cf. Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at

6(district court found delay would be unjust where the summary

judgment on plaintiff’s $19 million claim was granted and where

market interest rates were higher than statutory interest rates

and where the litigation was likely to last years).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion of New West

Stations, Inc., New West Petroleum, LLC and New West Petroleum,

L.P. for judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

54(b), be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

DATED: July 5, 2005

Case 2:03-cv-02222-WBS-EFB Document 217 Filed 07/06/05 Page 3 of 3