Chapman v. Ramada Inn Vallejo, 2:16-cv-02415

Plaintiff Byron Chapman moved for default judgment against some, but not all, defendants; the motion lacked proof of service on the defaulted defendants.
Plaintiff’s counsel later filed a declaration stating that courtesy copies of the motion materials were mailed to the defaulted defendants.
The amended complaint alleges joint and several liability of all defendants and asserts each cause of action against every defendant.
The court identified a potential conflict between entering default judgment against some defendants while others remain active given the risk of inconsistent or absurd results under Frow.
Plaintiff did not address the Rule 54(b) and Frow issues in the original motion for default judgment.
The court continued the hearing, ordered plaintiff to serve the order on the defaulted defendants and file proof of service, and required a supplemental brief explaining the effect of Frow and Rule 54(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court may enter default judgment as to fewer than all defendants when complaint alleges joint and several liability	Chapman seeks default judgment against the defaulting defendants (did not address joint-liability problem)	No argument on record from defaulted defendants (no opposition)	Court did not grant judgment; continued hearing and ordered supplemental briefing on Frow and Rule 54(b)
Whether plaintiff provided adequate service or proof of service for the defaulted defendants	Plaintiff asserts courtesy copies were mailed to defaulted defendants	Defaulted defendants have not appeared to contest service	Court ordered plaintiff to serve this order on the defaulted defendants and to file proof of that service within five days
Whether entry of partial final judgment requires explicit Rule 54(b) findings	Plaintiff did not address the Rule 54(b) requirement	N/A	Court required plaintiff to file a supplemental memorandum explaining how Rule 54(b) affects the motion
Risk of inconsistent judgments if some defendants default and others proceed to judgment on merits	Plaintiff did not rebut risk; did not analyze Frow precedent	N/A	Court ordered plaintiff to address Frow and the potential for inconsistent or absurd judgments in supplemental filing

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (discretion to enter judgment as to fewer than all defendants)
Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552 (warning against final decree against one defendant while cause proceeds against others)
In re First T.D. & Investment, 253 F.3d 520 (9th Cir.) (explaining Frow standard regarding jointly liable defendants)
Gulf Coast Fans, Inc. v. Midwest Elecs. Imp., Inc., 740 F.2d 1499 (11th Cir.) (cautioning against default judgment that could conflict with merits judgment for co-defendants)
Shanghai Automation Instrument Co. v. Kuei, 194 F. Supp. 2d 995 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (discussing entry of differing judgments against some defendants)