Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00382/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00382-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides:

When an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether as a claim,

counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim—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

- 1 - 10cv382

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEDIFAST, INC.; BRADLEY

MACDONALD,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10-CV-382 JLS (BGS)

ORDER: DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF

JUDGMENT UNDER FED. R. CIV.

P. 54(b)

(Doc. No. 134)

 

vs.

BARRY MINKOW; FRAUD DISCOVERY

INSTITUTE, INC.; ROBERT L.

FITZPATRICK; TRACY COENEN;

SEQUENCE, INC.; WILLIAM LOBDELL;

IBUSINESS REPORTING;

ZEEYOURSELF,

Defendants.

On March 29, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ anti-SLAPP

motions to strike Plaintiffs’ complaint. (Doc. No. 130.) Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs

Medifast, Inc. and Bradley MacDonald’s motion for entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 54(b).1

 The explicit purpose of Plaintiffs’ motion is to clarify “when Plaintiffs’ time for

Case 3:10-cv-00382-CAB-BGS Document 136 Filed 04/25/11 Page 1 of 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

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.

2

 Defendants Coenen and Sequence, Inc., and FitzPatrick have filed separate motions for

judgment under 54(b), for separate purposes. (Doc. Nos. 131, 133.) The Court will address those

motions by separate Order.

- 2 - 10cv382

filing a notice of appeal [from the Court’s order on Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions] begins . . . to

run.”2

 (Doc. No. 134-1, at 2; see also id. at 3 (“[I]t is unclear whether the time for filing a notice of

appeal has begun to run on portions of the case, or if not, when it will begin to run.”).)

The Court need not enter judgment to start the running of Plaintiffs’ time for filing a notice

of appeal. See, e.g., Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 994 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he denial of an antiSLAPP motion is immediately appealable pursuant to the collateral order doctrine.”); Batzel v. Smith,

333 F.3d 1018, 1025 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A district court’s denial of a claim of immunity, to the extent

that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291

notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of

judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 25, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00382-CAB-BGS Document 136 Filed 04/25/11 Page 2 of 2