Casaretto et al v. Coldwell Banker Realty et al, No. 5:2010cv00509 - Document 78 (N.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Regarding Final Judgment for Coldwell Banker and Jan Brigham. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 5/5/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Mailing)(lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2011)

Download PDF
Casaretto et al v. Coldwell Banker Realty et al Doc. 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SAN JOSE DIVISION 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 JOHN CASARETTO aka JUAN CASARETTO ) and GLORIA CASARETTO, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) COLDWELL BANKER REALTY; KELLER ) WILLIAMS REALTY; OSCAR MARTINEZ ) dba CENTURY MEDALLION LOS GATOS; ) WILLOW MORTGAGE COMPANY; ) VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA, INC, dba ) COLDWELL BANKER; TIMOTHY ) CONWAY; and ALEXIS JAN BRIGHAM, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Case No.: 10-CV-00509-LHK ORDER REGARDING FINAL JUDGMENT 20 21 On April 15, 2011, the Court granted Summary Judgment in favor of Defendants Valley of 22 California, Inc. dba Coldwell Banker Realty and Alexis Jan Brigham (Defendants) regarding the 23 single claim asserted against them in this action. Dkt. No. 65. On April 26, 2011, the Court denied 24 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the complaint in this case in order to add causes of action against 25 Defendants. Dkt. No. 73. Accordingly, there are no longer any claims pending against Defendants 26 in this matter. 27 28 On April 27, 2011, Defendants filed a document titled “[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT.” Without citation to any authority, Defendants ask the Court to approve an Order stating that “the 1 Case No.: 10-CV-00509-LHK ORDER REGARDING FINAL JUDGMENT Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 action be dismissed on the merits as to Defendants . . . and that said Defendants recover their costs.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) states: (b) Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When an action presents more than one claim for relief — whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim — or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities. Because the Court’s Orders as to Defendants do not dispose of all claims asserted in this 11 case, Defendants must move for entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) if they wish to obtain a 12 final judgment before all the claims in case have been resolved. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: May 5, 2011 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case No.: 10-CV-00509-LHK ORDER REGARDING FINAL JUDGMENT

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.