Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00092/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00092-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shea Homes Limited partnership
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHEA HOMES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-00092 TEH

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

PURSUANT TO RULE 54(b).

On November 9, 2005, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss claims

four through ten of the instant complaint. On December 19, 2005, Plaintiff, Shea Homes

Limited Partnership (“Shea”) filed the instant motion for Entry of Final Judgment

Pursuant to Rule 54(b). Specifically, Shea seeks a final judgment on its fourth through

tenth claims so that it may pursue an immediate appeal of the Court’s November 9, 2005

Order.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 permits the Court to “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.” “‘It is left to the sound judicial

discretion of the district court to determine the ‘appropriate time’ when each final

decision in a multiple claims actions is ready for appeal.’” Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422

F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Relevant considerations are the

interests of sound judicial administration and avoiding piecemeal appeals. Id.

Case 3:04-cv-00092-TEH Document 95 Filed 01/18/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court is not persuaded that an immediate appeal is warranted in this case. 

Shea disputes the potential for any overlap between the dismissed and remaining claims,

and contends that the possibility of additional jurisdictional rulings and appeals is

speculative. While there may not be certainty in these matters, the Court is not

convinced that an immediate appeal would be in the interests of sound judicial

administration or avoid unnecessary piecemeal review in this case.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)

is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2006 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-00092-TEH Document 95 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 2