First American Title Insurance Company v. Commerce Associates, LLC

D. Nevada

First American Title Insurance Company v. Commerce Associates, LLC

DecidedMarch 30, 2024

Docket2:15-cv-00832

StatusUnknown

This text of First American Title Insurance Company v. Commerce Associates, LLC (First American Title Insurance Company v. Commerce Associates, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

First American Title Insurance Company v. Commerce Associates, LLC, (D. Nev. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE Case No. 2:15-cv-00832-RFB-MDC COMPANY, 8 ORDER Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 COMMERCE ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Before the Court is Plaintiff First American Title Insurance Company’s Motion for 15 Judgment. ECF No. 201. 16

17 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 18 On May 4, 2015, Plaintiff commenced the current suit against Commerce Associates, LLC 19 and TG Investments, LLC. ECF No. 1. On November 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial 20 Summary Judgment. ECF No. 90. On September 29, 2017, the Motion was denied without 21 prejudice and Plaintiff was given leave to refile after trial. ECF No. 105. The parties filed a joint 22 proposed pretrial order on November 17, 2017 and trial was subsequently scheduled and postponed 23 several times. ECF No. 108. 24 On July 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Partial 25 Summary Judgment, seeking to renew its Motion for Summary Judgment and representing that if 26 granted leave and if its motion for summary judgment were granted, it would voluntarily dismiss 27 its remaining claims against Defendants. ECF No. 144. On March 3, 2020, the Court granted, in 28 1 part, the Motion for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. ECF No. 2 156. 3 The Motion for Summary Judgment considered Plaintiff’s breach of contract and unjust 4 enrichment claims, as well as Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants Gonzales and TG Investments, LLC 5 are joint and severally liable for Commerce’s alleged debts pursuant to a theory of alter ego 6 liability. On June 8, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Motion for Summary 7 Judgment. ECF No. 164. The Court granted summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. 8 The Court denied summary judgment without prejudice with regard to the unjust enrichment claim, 9 because this cause of action is not available when there is an express, written contract. On the same 10 date, the Clerk’s Office entered judgment in favor of First American on its breach of contract 11 claim. ECF No. 165. On July 14, 2020, the Court issued Minutes of Proceeding vacating the 12 Clerk’s entry of judgment. ECF No. 174. The Court stated that the order regarding the Motion for 13 Summary Judgment was not intended to be a final judgment, or an appealable final order, under 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(a). Id. 15 On April 7, 2020, the Court vacated the pretrial conference and jury trial in light of the 16 global pandemic and set a status conference. ECF No. 161. An evidentiary hearing was held on 17 January 12, 2021. ECF No. 192. 18 III. LEGAL STANDARD 19 When an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether as a claim, counterclaim, 20 crossclaim, or third-party claim—or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry 21 of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly 22 determines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however 23 designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all 24 the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time 25 before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities. 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54. 27 Rule 54(b) applies where the district court has entered a final judgment as to particular 28 claims or parties, yet that judgment is not immediately appealable because other issues in the 1 case remain unresolved. Pursuant to Rule 54(b), the district court may sever this partial judgment 2 for immediate appeal whenever it determines that there is no just reason for delay. A court of 3 appeals may, of course, review such judgments for compliance with the requirements of finality, 4 but accords a great deference to the district court. James v. Price Stern Sloan, 283 F.3d 1064 n.6 5 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 797-98 (9th Cir. 1991)). 6 When a district court resolves fewer than all claims among all parties, the court may 7 direct entry of judgment only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for 8 delay. Rapp v. Franklin Cty., No. 22-35592, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31513 (9th Cir. Nov. 29, 9 2023). Otherwise, "any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than 10 all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to 11 any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment 12 adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities." Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 54(b)). 14 IV. DISCUSSION 15 The Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment by arguing that the Motion is requesting reconsideration of the Court’s decision to vacate the Clerk’s entry of judgment. 16 17 However, the Court explicitly stated that it denied entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 54(a). Presently, the Plaintiff requests entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). 19 20 In the context of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the United States Supreme Court has indicated that 21 it is proper for a district judge to consider such factors as whether the adjudicated claims were separable from the others and whether the nature of the claim was such that no appellate court 22 23 would have to decide the same issues more than once. Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873 24 n.2 (9th Cir. 2005). It has suggested that while the absence of any of these factors would not necessarily mean that certification was improper, it would require the district court to find a 25 26 sufficiently important reason for nonetheless granting certification. Id. 27 Finality is achieved only if the court takes each of two steps—it must make an express determination that there is no just reason for delay, and it also must make an express direction for 28 1 the entry of judgment. United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., 859 F.3d 789, 797 (9th Cir. 2 2017). The Court finds that only two claims—breach of contract and, in the alternative, unjust 3 enrichment—remained at the time of its June 8, 2020 Order. The June 8 Order resolved both of 4 these claims on the merits. It granted summary judgement on the former and denied it without 5 prejudice as to the latter. The Court further finds that the only remaining unresolved issue was that 6 of alter ego liability regarding Defendants TG Investments, LLC and Tom Gonzalez. The Court 7 thus finds that the breach of contract claim and unjust enrichment claims are severable from the 8 dispute as to alter ego. The Court further finds consistent with its prior order that the amount of 9 damages for the breach of contract claim is $300,000.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE Case No. 2:15-cv-00832-RFB-MDC COMPANY, 8 ORDER Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 COMMERCE ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Before the Court is Plaintiff First American Title Insurance Company’s Motion for 15 Judgment. ECF No. 201. 16

17 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 18 On May 4, 2015, Plaintiff commenced the current suit against Commerce Associates, LLC 19 and TG Investments, LLC. ECF No. 1. On November 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial 20 Summary Judgment. ECF No. 90. On September 29, 2017, the Motion was denied without 21 prejudice and Plaintiff was given leave to refile after trial. ECF No. 105. The parties filed a joint 22 proposed pretrial order on November 17, 2017 and trial was subsequently scheduled and postponed 23 several times. ECF No. 108. 24 On July 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Partial 25 Summary Judgment, seeking to renew its Motion for Summary Judgment and representing that if 26 granted leave and if its motion for summary judgment were granted, it would voluntarily dismiss 27 its remaining claims against Defendants. ECF No. 144. On March 3, 2020, the Court granted, in 28 1 part, the Motion for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. ECF No. 2 156. 3 The Motion for Summary Judgment considered Plaintiff’s breach of contract and unjust 4 enrichment claims, as well as Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants Gonzales and TG Investments, LLC 5 are joint and severally liable for Commerce’s alleged debts pursuant to a theory of alter ego 6 liability. On June 8, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Motion for Summary 7 Judgment. ECF No. 164. The Court granted summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. 8 The Court denied summary judgment without prejudice with regard to the unjust enrichment claim, 9 because this cause of action is not available when there is an express, written contract. On the same 10 date, the Clerk’s Office entered judgment in favor of First American on its breach of contract 11 claim. ECF No. 165. On July 14, 2020, the Court issued Minutes of Proceeding vacating the 12 Clerk’s entry of judgment. ECF No. 174. The Court stated that the order regarding the Motion for 13 Summary Judgment was not intended to be a final judgment, or an appealable final order, under 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(a). Id. 15 On April 7, 2020, the Court vacated the pretrial conference and jury trial in light of the 16 global pandemic and set a status conference. ECF No. 161. An evidentiary hearing was held on 17 January 12, 2021. ECF No. 192. 18 III. LEGAL STANDARD 19 When an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether as a claim, counterclaim, 20 crossclaim, or third-party claim—or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry 21 of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly 22 determines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however 23 designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all 24 the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time 25 before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities. 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54. 27 Rule 54(b) applies where the district court has entered a final judgment as to particular 28 claims or parties, yet that judgment is not immediately appealable because other issues in the 1 case remain unresolved. Pursuant to Rule 54(b), the district court may sever this partial judgment 2 for immediate appeal whenever it determines that there is no just reason for delay. A court of 3 appeals may, of course, review such judgments for compliance with the requirements of finality, 4 but accords a great deference to the district court. James v. Price Stern Sloan, 283 F.3d 1064 n.6 5 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 797-98 (9th Cir. 1991)). 6 When a district court resolves fewer than all claims among all parties, the court may 7 direct entry of judgment only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for 8 delay. Rapp v. Franklin Cty., No. 22-35592, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31513 (9th Cir. Nov. 29, 9 2023). Otherwise, "any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than 10 all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to 11 any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment 12 adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities." Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 54(b)). 14 IV. DISCUSSION 15 The Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment by arguing that the Motion is requesting reconsideration of the Court’s decision to vacate the Clerk’s entry of judgment. 16 17 However, the Court explicitly stated that it denied entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 54(a). Presently, the Plaintiff requests entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). 19 20 In the context of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the United States Supreme Court has indicated that 21 it is proper for a district judge to consider such factors as whether the adjudicated claims were separable from the others and whether the nature of the claim was such that no appellate court 22 23 would have to decide the same issues more than once. Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873 24 n.2 (9th Cir. 2005). It has suggested that while the absence of any of these factors would not necessarily mean that certification was improper, it would require the district court to find a 25 26 sufficiently important reason for nonetheless granting certification. Id. 27 Finality is achieved only if the court takes each of two steps—it must make an express determination that there is no just reason for delay, and it also must make an express direction for 28 1 the entry of judgment. United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., 859 F.3d 789, 797 (9th Cir. 2 2017). The Court finds that only two claims—breach of contract and, in the alternative, unjust 3 enrichment—remained at the time of its June 8, 2020 Order. The June 8 Order resolved both of 4 these claims on the merits. It granted summary judgement on the former and denied it without 5 prejudice as to the latter. The Court further finds that the only remaining unresolved issue was that 6 of alter ego liability regarding Defendants TG Investments, LLC and Tom Gonzalez. The Court 7 thus finds that the breach of contract claim and unjust enrichment claims are severable from the 8 dispute as to alter ego. The Court further finds consistent with its prior order that the amount of 9 damages for the breach of contract claim is $300,000. 10 Moreover, the Court finds that there is no reason for delay. The Court decided the claims 11 against Commerce on the merits over three years ago. Due to the pandemic and administrative 12 oversight, the case was delayed. The Court now issues this order. 13 Accordingly, the Court finds there is no just reason for delay and directs entry of judgment 14 in favor of Plaintiff First American Title Insurance Company against Defendant Commerce 15 Associates, LLC. 16 V. CONCLUSION 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Entry of Judgment (ECF No. 201) 18 is GRANTED in favor of First American Title Insurance Company on the breach of contract cause 19 of action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The Clerk is instructed to enter 20 judgment accordingly with damages in the amount of $300,000. The Court reserves its finding as 21 to fees and costs until a motion for such fees and costs is filed. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must file any motion for fees and costs 2 | consistent with this order by April 21, 2024. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will issue a separate written ruling as to alter 4| ego liability. 5 6 DATED: March 30, 2024 7 amore CYS 10 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_5-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

First American Title Insurance Company v. Commerce Associates, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-american-title-insurance-company-v-commerce-associates-llc-nvd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack