Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 21NWCV00133, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 21NWCV00133, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00133 Hearing Date: March 14, 2024 Dept: C

SAADIA SQUARE LLC v. ALL WAYS PACIFIC, LLC

CASE NO.: 21NWCV00133

HEARING: 03/14/24

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant SAADIA SQUARE LLC’s Motion for Entry of Judgment is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give notice.

This action was filed on March 5, 2021.

On September 26, 2023, Defendants Rialto Merrill Holdings, LLC; All-Ways Pacific LLC; All-Ways Far East, LLC; and All-Ways Forwarding International Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment was GRANTED.

On January 30, 2024, this Court issued an Order stating: “With respect to All-Ways Far East, LLC and All-Ways Forwarding International, Inc., they are not registered to do business in the state of California. Nor are they necessary parties to this action. Accordingly, those entities are dismissed from this action and are stricken from the complaint…. [¶] Accordingly, Rialto Pacific, LLC f/k/a All-Ways Pacific, LLC is ORDERED to file an amended complaint within 20 days. Upon doing so, the Motion to Dismiss will become MOOT.” (Order, 01/30/24.)

Since January 30, 2024, and as of March 11, 2024, no amended pleadings have been filed with this Court.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Saadia Square LLC (“Saadia”) now moves for an Order requiring All-Ways Far East, LLC and All-Ways Forwarding International, Inc. to prepare and submit a proposed judgment in accordance with this Court’s September 26, 2023 and January 30, 2024 Orders. All-Ways Far East, LLC and All-Ways Forwarding International, Inc. successfully moved for summary judgment, and have not submitted a proposed judgment in their favor. Saadia maintains that there are no further claims between All-Ways Far East, LLC and All Ways Forwarding International, Inc. on the one hand; and Saadia on the other hand. Saadia argues that All-Ways Far East, LLC and All-Ways Forwarding International, Inc. should be required to submit a judgment now to prevent any interference with Saadia’s right to appeal the September 26, 2023 Order.

In Opposition, Cross-Complainants Rialto Merrill Holdings, LLC; Rialto Distribution LLC; RD Real Estate Holdings LLC; All-Ways Far East LLC; All-Ways Forwarding International, Inc.; and Rialto Pacific LLC (“All-Ways”) argue that entry of judgment at this time is premature and would violate the one final judgment rule. All-Ways maintains that there are two other affiliated defendants who also prevailed on the same summary judgment motion (Rialto Pacific LLC and Rialto Merrill Holdings, LLC), and these defendants cannot have judgment entered in their favor because of their pending cross-complaint against Saadia. Granting Saadia’s request will result in piecemeal disposition and multiple appeals of a single summary judgment Motion. Allowing Saadia to appeal a judgment in favor of All-Ways Far East, LLC and All-Ways Forwarding International, Inc. might be duplicative of a future appeal by Saadia from a judgment in favor of Rialto Pacific LLC and Rialto Merrill Holdings, LLC based upon the same summary judgment Order.

California follows the single judgment rule. “The ‘one final judgment rule’ provides that an appeal may be taken from a final judgment, but not an interlocutory judgment. [Citation.] To determine whether a particular declaratory judgment is final, the general test is that where no issue is left for future consideration except the fact of compliance or noncompliance with the terms of the first decree, that decree is final, but where anything further in the nature of judicial action on the part of the court is essential to a final determination of the rights of the parties, the decree is interlocutory. [Citations.] [¶] Therefore, an appeal cannot be taken from a judgment that fails to complete the disposition of all the causes of action between the parties even if the causes of action disposed of by the judgment have been ordered to be tried separately, or may be characterized as separate and independent from those remaining. [Citations.]” (Angell v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 691, 697.) “The same rule applies when some of the causes of action are alleged in a cross-complaint. Thus, when a judgment resolves a complaint, but does not dispose of a cross-complaint pending between the same parties, the judgment is not final and thus not appealable.” (Id. at 698.)

However, the multi-party exception to the one final judgment rule codified at CCP §§578 and 579 “gives a trial court discretion to render judgment against one defendant and allow the action to proceed against other defendants whenever a several judgment is proper.” (Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 572, 577.) “[T]here is ample authority for the proposition that the trial court, in its discretion, may enter judgment in favor of one or more defendants when all issues between those defendants and the plaintiff have been adjudicated, even though the action remains pending against those defendants who have not obtained adjudication of all issues.” (Id. at 578.)

Here, it is undisputed that all issues between All-Ways Far East, LLC and Al-Ways Forwarding International, Inc. have been resolved by way of summary judgment. Pursuant to CCP §§578 and 579 a trial court has authority to render judgment for one defendant and allow the action to proceed against other defendants whenever a several judgment is just and proper. (See Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 572, 578.) Therefore, this Court has discretion to enter judgment in their favor.

Entering judgment in favor of only All-Ways Far East, LLC and All-Ways Forwarding International, Inc. at this time would open up the possibility of multiple, successive appeals on identical legal issues where judgment cannot be entered against the other two prevailing parties on summary judgment (Rialto Pacific LLC and Rialto Merrill Holdings, LLC) due to issues remining on their pending cross-complaint. The Court declines to exercise its discretion to enter judgment at this time, to ensure that a single appeal of the September 2023 summary judgment order may proceed.

The Motion is DENIED.