Marani v. Cramer

Background

Marani filed the action in August 2019 against Michael Cramer and ten other defendants. The operative complaint asserts seven claims against Cramer and different combinations of defendants: two claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly called RICO, and five state-law claims for intentional misrepresentation, concealment, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract.

The court had directed entry of default against Cramer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Marani then moved under Rule 55(b)(2) for default judgment against Cramer on all claims. At the time of this order, Travis Capson and Harvey G. Flemming were the remaining defendants who had not been dismissed or defaulted. The two RICO claims appeared to remain pending against Cramer, Capson, and Flemming; the fraudulent-misrepresentation claim appeared to remain pending against Cramer and Capson; and the other state-law claims appeared to remain pending against Cramer alone.

Reason for the Order

The court raised Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which governs when a court may enter a final judgment on fewer than all claims or parties in a case. The court explained that, under Ninth Circuit precedent, a default judgment generally should not be entered against one defendant before claims involving similarly situated, non-defaulting defendants have been resolved when doing so could produce inconsistent results.

Marani alleged that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for RICO and fraud damages. He also alleged that Cramer led the RICO enterprise and that Capson and Flemming were involved co-conspirators or members of that enterprise. The court stated that these allegations, together with Marani’s assertion of joint and several liability, appeared to trigger this rule.

Order

Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu ordered Marani to respond by March 5, 2025, and show cause why the undersigned should not recommend that the motion for default judgment against Cramer be denied without prejudice, with leave to renew after the claims against all remaining non-dismissed, non-defaulting defendants have been adjudicated or otherwise resolved.

The order was an order to show cause; it did not itself finally deny the default-judgment motion. The opinion does not state what Marani later filed or whether a final recommendation or decision was entered.