Gibson Guitar Corp v. Viacom International Inc et al
Filing
56
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION 48 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson . (lc). Modified on 8/6/2013. (lc).
<![CDATA[
1
2
O
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GIBSON GUITAR CORP., a
Delaware corporation,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC., a
Delaware corporation; JOHN
HORNBY SKEWES & CO., LTD., a
United Kingdom corporation,
Defendants.
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 12-10870 DDP (AJWx)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
CERTIFICATION
[Dkt. No. 48]
18
19
Presently before the court is Plaintiff Gibson Guitar Corp.
20
(“Gibson”)’s Motion for Certification under F.R.C.P. 54(B) of the
21
Court’s May 17, 2013 Order.
22
submissions, the court DENIES the Motion.
23
Having considered the parties’
In the court’s May 17, 2013, Order, the court granted
24
Defendant Viacom International Inc. (“Viacom”)’s motion to dismiss
25
Gibson’s first amended complaint (“FAC”).
26
John Hornby Skewes & Co., LTD (“JHS”) infringed on Gibson’s FLYING
27
V trademarks through the SpongeBob SquarePants Flying V Ukulele,
28
and that Viacom, owner of the SpongeBob trademarks, was vicariously
The FAC alleged that
1
and contributorily liable.
2
defendant.
3
has not yet answered the FAC.
4
5
6
7
8
9
The court dismissed Viacom as a
At the time of this Order, JHS remains a defendant and
Gibson moves for certification of the order dismissing Viacom.
Rule 54(b) provides, in relevant part:
When more than one claim for relief is presented in an
action . . . or when multiple parties are involved, the
court may 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 and upon an express determination for
the entry of judgment.
10
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
11
it is dealing with a ‘final judgment,’” and then “whether there is
12
any just reason for delay.”
13
Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1980).
14
individual claims should be immediately appealable, even if they
15
are in some sense separable from the remaining unresolved claims.”
16
Id. at 8.
17
unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying the number
18
of proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket are
19
outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for an early and
20
separate judgment as to some claims or parties.”
21
Co., Inc. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981).
22
“A district court must first determine that
Curtiss-Writght Corp. v. General Elec.
“Not all final judgments on
“Judgments under Rule 54(b) must be reserved for the
Morrison-Knudsen
The parties agree that the court’s judgment dismissing Viacom
23
is a final judgment in the sense of Rule 54(b).
The issue is
24
whether there is any just reason for delay.
25
certification of an appeal would waste judicial resources.
26
Gibson’s claims against Viacom are for vicarious infringement and
27
contributory liability.
28
found to be a direct infringer, then the issue of Viacom’s
Viacom argues that
If the remaining defendant JHS is not
2
1
secondary liability is moot.
For this reason, Viacom argues, it
2
would be more efficient to obtain a determination on that claim
3
before allowing an appeal as to Viacom’s liability.
4
Gibson argues that it would be prejudiced if it must wait
5
until after the JHS trial on direct infringement because it will be
6
unable to pursue discovery and a trial against Viacom without
7
certification.
8
be a direct infringer, and if Viacom were later found to be
9
vicariously or contributorily liable, there would have to be a new
10
trial on the merits of the direct infringement claim because Viacom
11
would not have been a party to that action and collateral estoppel
12
would not apply.
It also expresses concern that if JHS were found to
13
Despite these concerns, the court finds that this is not a
14
case where equity or efficiency require the certification of an
15
appeal.
16
Viacom was a close call.
17
to have any impact on the action, JHS would have to be found to be
18
a direct infringer.
19
certification is not appropriate and DENIES the motion.
Gibson has not convinced the court that the dismissal of
Additionally, for an appellate reversal
For these reasons, the court finds that
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
Dated: August 6, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
