Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00891/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00891-2/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

MILILANI GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

O’REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., and 

CSK AUTO, INC.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00891 JAM-CKD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN 

FAVOR OF O’REILLY

This matter is before the Court on Defendants O’Reilly 

Automotive, Inc. (“O’Reilly”), and CSK Auto, Inc.’s (“CSK”) 

(collectively “Defendants”) Motion for Entry of Judgment in Favor 

of O’Reilly (Doc. #31). Plaintiff Mililani Group, Inc.

(“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion (Doc. ##32, 36) and Defendants

replied (Doc. #34).1 For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion

is GRANTED.

///

///

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 

for June 5, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-00891-JAM-CKD Document 37 Filed 06/17/13 Page 1 of 4
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

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendants moved to dismiss all claims against O’Reilly and 

the waste claim; that motion was granted with leave to amend (Doc. 

#16). After Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) 

(Doc. #17), Defendants once more moved to dismiss all claims 

against O’Reilly and the waste claim. On April 3, 2013, the Court 

granted Defendants’ second motion to dismiss with prejudice 

(“Order”). Order, Doc. #29, at 7. 

On May 5, 2013, Defendants filed this present motion for 

entry of judgment in favor of O’Reilly (Doc. #31). Plaintiff 

opposed the motion (Doc. #32). The Court issued a minute order 

amending the Order as follows: “All claims against Defendant 

O’Reilly Automotive, Inc., (Defendant O’Reilly) are dismissed with 

prejudice.” Minute Order and Order to Show Cause (“Minute 

Order”), Doc. #33. The Court further ordered Plaintiff to inform 

the Court in writing whether it still opposed the entry of 

judgment in favor of O’Reilly. Id. On May 29, 2013, Plaintiff 

responded to the Court’s minute order, stating that it still 

opposes Defendants’ motion for entry of judgment. Plaintiff’s 

Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (“Response”), Doc. 

#36, at 2.

II. OPINION

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) allows a district court 

to direct entry of final judgment for the purpose of appeal as to 

one or more, but fewer than all, claims if the Court expressly 

determines that there is no just reason for delay. Fed. R. Civ. 

Case 2:12-cv-00891-JAM-CKD Document 37 Filed 06/17/13 Page 2 of 4
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

P. 54(b). First, the Court must determine whether it is dealing 

with a final judgment. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 

446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980). “It must be a ‘judgment’ in the sense that 

it is a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief, and it must 

be ‘final’ in the sense that it is ‘an ultimate disposition of an 

individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims 

action.’” Id. (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 

427, 436 (1956)). Second, the Court must determine whether there 

is any just reason for delay, “tak[ing] into account judicial 

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

at 8. To determine if there is any just reason for delay, “[a] 

district court may consider factors such as ‘whether the claims 

under review were separable from the others remaining to be 

adjudicated’ as well as ‘whether the nature of the claims already 

determined is such that no appellate court would have to decide 

the same issues more than once even if there were subsequent 

appeals.’” Randhawa v. Skylux, Inc., CIV. 2:09-02304 WBS, 2013 WL 

1152063, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2013) (citing Curtiss-Wright 

Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980)).

B. Discussion

1. Final Judgment

Defendants argue that the case against O’Reilly has been fully 

and finally determined in favor of O’Reilly. Mot. at 5. Plaintiff 

argues that entry of judgment is not appropriate because no facts 

have been developed and because the Court may change its mind. 

Response at 2. However, Plaintiff failed twice to properly allege 

alter ego liability against O’Reilly and therefore the Court 

dismissed all claims against O’Reilly without leave to amend. 

Case 2:12-cv-00891-JAM-CKD Document 37 Filed 06/17/13 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Order at 5. Moreover, the Court has now made clear that all claims 

against O’Reilly have been dismissed with prejudice. Minute Order, 

Doc. #33. Accordingly, the Court has ultimately disposed of all 

claims against O’Reilly as required for entry of judgment under 

Rule 54(d).

2. Just Reason for Delay

Defendants contend that entry of judgment in O’Reilly’s favor 

would promote judicial efficiency because if Plaintiff prevails in 

appealing the entry of judgment in O’Reilly’s favor, the case would 

then continue simultaneously against both O’Reilly and CSK. Reply 

at 2. Plaintiff disagrees, arguing that entry of judgment would 

start the time period for an appeal and force Plaintiff to appeal 

the judgment now instead of waiting to resolve all issues in a 

single appeal at the conclusion of the case. Response at 2. 

Because the alter ego claim against O’Reilly is separate from the 

breach of contract claim that remains against CSK, the appellate 

court will not have to decide the same issue more than once and 

therefore, one single appeal is unnecessary. See Randhawa, 2013 WL 

1152063, at *2 (noting that the Court should consider whether the 

claims are separable and whether the appellate court would have to 

decide the same issue more than once). Accordingly, the Court 

finds that there is no just reason for delay. 

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion for Entry 

of Judgment in Favor of O’Reilly is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2013

Case 2:12-cv-00891-JAM-CKD Document 37 Filed 06/17/13 Page 4 of 4