Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01766/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01766-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bobcat Company
Defendant
Jayme Bruce
Plaintiff
Jessica Bruce
Plaintiff
Tina Bruce
Plaintiff
Clark Equipment Company
Defendant
Ingersoll-Rand Company
Defendant
Melroe Company
Defendant
Samuel Wilds
Defendant
Wilds Horticultural Services, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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----

TINA BRUCE, JAYME BRUCE, a NO. CIV. S-05-01766 WBS KJM

minor, by and through her 

Guardian Ad Litem, Tina ORDER FOR JUDGMENT

Bruce, and JESSICA BRUCE, a 

minor, by and through her 

Guardian Ad Litem, Tina 

Bruce,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY,

BOBCAT COMPANY, MELROE

COMPANY, INGERSOLL-RAND

COMPANY, WILDS HORTICULTURAL

SERVICES, INC., SAMUEL WILDS,

and Does 1 through 50,

inclusive, 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On March 26, 2007, this court issued an order granting

summary judgment on all claims as to defendant Ingersoll-Rand

Company (“Ingersoll”). On April 26, 2007, Ingersoll filed with

this court a “Proposed Judgment,” seeking an entry of judgment

based on the March 26, 2007 order.

Rule 54(b) counsels that in actions involving multiple

Case 2:05-cv-01766-WBS -KJM Document 64 Filed 05/09/07 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

claims or multiple parties, district courts “may direct the entry

of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the

claims or parties” upon a determination that there was 1) a

“final judgment” and 2) there is “no just reason for delay.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,

446 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1980); Cont’l Airlines, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire &

Rubber Co., 819 F.2d 1519, 1524 (9th Cir. 1987). A “final

judgment” 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

in the course of a multiple claims action.” Sears, Roebuck & Co.

v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 436 (1956). 

This case originally involved four claims brought

against all defendants: 1) strict liability; 2) negligence; 3)

breach of warranty; and 4) negligent infliction of emotional

distress. (Compl.) The court’s March 26, 2007, order granted

summary judgment for Ingersoll on plaintiffs’ strict liability

claim based on its finding that Ingersoll’s limited involvement

with the manufacturing and marketing of the Bobcat loader was

insufficient to impute strict liability. (March 26, 2007 Order

9-11.) Plaintiffs agreed to the dismissal of the remaining three

claims as to Ingersoll. (See March 26, 2007 Order 10-11, 11

n.7.) Accordingly, the previous order satisfies Rule 54(b)’s

finality requirement.

In evaluating whether there is any just reason for

delay, it is the district court’s function to determine the

proper time when each final decision is ready for appeal, given

judicial administrative interests as well as the equities

Case 2:05-cv-01766-WBS -KJM Document 64 Filed 05/09/07 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

involved. 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.” Cont’l Airlines, 819 F.2d at 1524. “It is

left to the sound judicial discretion of the district court” to

make this determination. Id.

In this case, the court’s finding that Ingersoll could

not be found strictly liable was based on Ingersoll’s lack of

significant control over the manufacturing and marketing process

for Bobcat loaders. (March 26, 2007 Order 9-11.) The factual

and legal conclusions underlying that decision are inapplicable

to the remaining defendants in the case, as it is undisputed that

Clark Equipment Company (and its unincorporated business unit

Bobcat Company) are responsible for the manufacture, marketing,

and sale of the loaders. (Thomas Ihringer Decl. in Supp. of

Def’s Mot. for Summ. J. ¶¶ 2-4,6.) The matters disposed of by

the this court’s previous order “were sufficiently severable

factually and legally from the remaining matters, and they

completely extinguished the liability [for Ingersoll].” Cont’l

Airlines, 819 F.2d at 1525. Thus, there is no risk that an

appellate court, hearing an appeal from a judgment issued in

Ingersoll’s favor based on this court’s March 26, 2007, order,

would be forced to reconsider that issue. Accordingly, the court

will proceed to order judgment in favor of Ingersoll.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that judgment for defendant

Ingersoll-Rand be entered in accordance with this court’s March

Case 2:05-cv-01766-WBS -KJM Document 64 Filed 05/09/07 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

26, 2007, order. Ingersoll-Rand may recover its costs and fees

as approved by this court upon notice of a motion pursuant to

Local Rule 54-292.

DATED: May 8, 2007

Case 2:05-cv-01766-WBS -KJM Document 64 Filed 05/09/07 Page 4 of 4