GS Holistic LLC v. Thana LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 3, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00376
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 GS HOLISTIC, LLC, CASE NO. C23-0376JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 THANA LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 Before the court is Plaintiff GS Holistic, LLC’s (“GS Holistic”) motion for entry 16 of default judgment against Defendants Thana LLC d/b/a Smoke Depot 2 (“Thana LLC”) 17 and Thana Marwan. (Mot. (Dkt. # 16) at 1; see also id. at 13 (requesting a permanent 18 injunction only against Thana LLC and Thana Marwan).) GS Holistic, however, named, 19 served, and obtained entry of default with respect to two additional Defendants: Ali 20 Abu-Alia and Abdulla Abu-Alia. (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1); Affs. of Service (Dkt. ## 7-10); 21 10/19/23 Default (Dkt. # 14) (entering default against Ali Abu-Alia and Abdulla 22 1 Abu-Alia).) Aside from naming Ali Abu-Alia and Abdulla Abu-Alia in the caption of its 2 motion for entry of default judgment (see Mot. at 1), GS Holistic does not refer to these

3 two Defendants anywhere in its motion (see generally id.) GS Holistic alleges joint and 4 several liability against all four Defendants. (See Compl. at 12-13.) 5 A district court may order final judgment against less than all of the parties in the 6 action only if it “expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. 7 P. 54(b). Entry of default judgment against less than all of the parties, however, is 8 disfavored because it allows for the possibility of multiple final judgments and multiple

9 appeals. See Gausvik v. Perez, 392 F.3d 1006, 1009 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[I]n the interest 10 of judicial economy Rule 54(b) should be used sparingly.”). Here, GS Holistic moves for 11 final default judgment as to only two of the four named Defendants; does not address 12 whether there is “no just reason to delay” entry of final judgment as to only those two 13 Defendants pursuant to Rule 54(b); and is silent regarding the disposition of this case

14 with respect to the remaining two Defendants. (See generally Mot.) Therefore, the court 15 DENIES GS Holistic’s motion for entry of default judgment without prejudice to GS 16 Holistic renewing its motion either (1) after dismissing its claims against Ali Abu-Alia 17 and Abdulla Abu-Alia or (2) by amending the motion to include a discussion of how the 18 court should dispose of GS Holistic’s claims against Ali Abu-Alia and Abdulla Abu-Alia.

19 Counsel for GS Holistic is further ORDERED to review the motions for default 20 judgment GS Holistic has filed in other cases in this District to ensure that those motions 21 either account for the disposition of all of GS Holistic’s claims against all of the 22 1 defendants in those cases or explain why there is “no just reason to delay” entry of final 2 judgment as to just a subset of defendants.

3 Dated this 3rd day of November, 2023. 4 A 5 6 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22