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

ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

COMMUNICATIONS SUPPLY

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

ELECTRO PRODUCTS, INC., 

Defendant.

CASE NO. C06-829JLR

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the court on a motion for summary judgment and request

for entry of partial judgment from Communications Supply Corporation (“CSC”)

(Dkt. # 10). Defendant Electro Products, Inc. (“Electro”) filed a response indicating that

it does not oppose the motion. For the reasons stated below, the court GRANTS in part

and DENIES in part CSC’s motion for summary judgment, and DENIES CSC’s request

to enter partial judgment. 

II. BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS

This case arises out of Electro’s sale of admittedly defective “patch panels” to

CSC. CSC filed suit against Electro alleging five separate causes of action: breach of

Case 2:06-cv-00829-JLR Document 18 Filed 04/09/07 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

1

Although Electro does not oppose CSC’s motion, the court still applies the standards of

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. See Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949-50 (9th Cir. 1993). Thus,

the court determines if CSC’s papers are sufficient to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue

of material fact and judgment is appropriate as a matter of law. See id. at 950.

ORDER – 2

contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,

negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Compl. ¶¶ 20, 24, 28, 32, 35. CSC

now moves for summary judgment and requests that the court enter partial judgment for

direct damages in the amount of $534,370.55. This figure represents CSC’s out-ofpocket expenses incurred in the process of replacing the faulty patch panels sold to its

customers. CSC contends that, because Electro concedes liability and admits to the

amount of direct damages it owes,1

 the only issue for trial is the question of whether CSC

can also collect consequential damages, such as those arising from lost profits, loss of

goodwill, and harm to its reputation. 

A. CSC’s Summary Judgment Motion

There is no genuine issue of material fact for trial on the question of Electro’s

liability for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied

warranty of merchantability. In its Answer and in its response to the instant motion,

Electro concedes that it entered into a contract with CSC to sell patch panels, failed to

perform under the contract, and breached express and implied warranties. Answer ¶¶ 18-

28; id. at 3, ¶ A; Resp. at 2. Electro further admits that it is liable to CSC for direct

damages in the amount of $534,370.55. Resp. at 2. Because there are no facts in dispute

as to Electro’s liability on these three claims, or the resulting amount of direct damages,

the court grants summary judgment in favor of CSC on its claims of breach of contract,

breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and

awards direct damages in the amount of $534,370.55.

Case 2:06-cv-00829-JLR Document 18 Filed 04/09/07 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

ORDER – 3

The court denies summary judgment on CSC’s remaining claims of unjust

enrichment and negligent misrepresentation. In its motion, CSC references Electro’s

admission of fault in the most general sense, without reference to any of the five causes

of action enumerated in its Complaint. In response, Electro simply refers to its Answer,

which admits liability as to the three above-listed claims, but denies fault as to CSC’s

additional claims of negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. See Answer ¶¶

30-35. CSC provides no evidence to suggest an absence of material fact as to these latter

claims for which it bears the ultimate burden of proof at trial. Without more, the court

concludes that summary judgment is inappropriate on CSC’s claims of negligent

misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

B. CSC’s Request for Partial Judgment Under Rule 54(b)

In addition to requesting adjudication of its claims, CSC moves for an “immediate”

entry of partial judgment so that it may collect on the $534,370.55 that the court has now

ruled Electro owes in direct damages. Under Rule 54(b), the court can enter a “final

judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims” in an action involving

multiple claims if it determines “that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b). The effect of an entry of partial judgment is to make such claims immediately

appealable. Because the rule raises the possibility of multiple final judgments, and

multiple appeals, courts enter partial judgment in relatively few cases. See Gausvik v.

Perez, 392 F.3d 1006, 1009 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[I]n the interest of judicial economy

Rule 54(b) should be used sparingly.”). By contrast, the practice of entering judgment at

the close of a case promotes “judicial efficiency, avoids multiplicity of litigation and

minimizes delay by forbidding piecemeal disposition on appeal of what for practical

purposes is a single controversy.” Am. States Ins. Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 884

(9th Cir. 2003); see also Gausvik, 392 F.3d at 1009 n.2 (“[Rule 54(b)] was not meant to

Case 2:06-cv-00829-JLR Document 18 Filed 04/09/07 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

ORDER – 4

displace the ‘historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals.’”) (quoting Sears,

Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 438 (1956)). 

The court declines to exercise its discretion to enter partial judgment. The court

has yet to consider CSC’s claims of unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and

its request for relief in the form of various consequential damages, such as loss of

goodwill. All of these remaining claims and forms of relief are related to, or arise from,

the same set of circumstances presented here. Accordingly, because CSC’s request

presents a risk of multiple judgments and multiple appeals on a case that should be

considered as a whole, the court will not enter partial judgment. Of course, if the parties

resolve the remaining claims, they may file a proposed consent judgment or the court will

enter a final judgment and close the matter. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS CSC’s motion for summary

judgment (Dkt. # 10) on its breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and breach of

implied warranty of merchantability claims. The court DENIES summary judgment as to

the remaining claims and DENIES CSC’s request to enter partial judgment.

 Dated this 6th day of April, 2007.

A JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00829-JLR Document 18 Filed 04/09/07 Page 4 of 4