Lowe v. Mao Izakaya & Sushi LLC
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:26-cv-00449
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Mi A Lowe v. Mao Izakaya, Judge Cousins denied Lowe’s motion for partial final judgment against Hana Escrow Company because other claims could affect its liability.
Mi A Lowe’s request for an immediate partial final judgment concerning Hana Escrow Company was denied; claims against other defendants remain relevant to HEC’s potential liability.
What happened
In Mi A Lowe v. Mao Izakaya & Sushi LLC, and others, Mi A Lowe asked the court to enter a partial final judgment concerning Hana Escrow Company. The opinion says the case involves claims against other defendants and an alleged fraudulent transfer of the restaurant to avoid paying Lowe.
The court explained that Rule 54(b) allows early judgment on some claims or parties only in unusual cases. Lowe did not show that an immediate appeal was urgently needed. Because claims against the other defendants could affect HEC’s liability as the escrow agent involved in the transaction, an early judgment could lead to separate, repetitive appeals and litigation.
The court denied Lowe’s motion for entry of partial final judgment as to HEC. Judge Nathanael M. Cousins signed the order on September 17, 2026.
The detailed version
- Lowe v. Mao Izakaya & Sushi LLC · No. 5:26-cv-00449
- Nathanael Cousins
- Sept. 17, 2026
Background
Mi A Lowe moved for entry of partial final judgment as to Hana Escrow Company, referred to as HEC. The opinion states that there had been an ultimate disposition as to HEC, but claims remained against other defendants. It also identifies as a central issue whether the defendants fraudulently transferred the restaurant to avoid payment to Lowe. HEC was the escrow agent involved in that transaction.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) permits a court to direct entry of a final judgment as to fewer than all claims or parties in an appropriate case. The court explained that this procedure is reserved for unusual cases in which the need for an early, separate judgment outweighs the risks of multiplying proceedings and overburdening the appellate docket. The party seeking certification bears the burden of showing that the case warrants it. The court also stated that piecemeal appeals generally are not allowed without a seriously important reason.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Lowe had not shown that partial final judgment was warranted. Claims against the other defendants could affect HEC’s liability, so allowing an appeal concerning HEC at this stage could result in piecemeal appeals and litigation. Lowe argued that delaying an appeal risked a duplicative HEC phase after the ongoing litigation, but the court found that this did not establish a pressing need for immediate partial judgment or show that it would speed the case’s resolution.
Disposition
The court denied Lowe’s motion for entry of partial final judgment as to HEC. The order was signed by Nathanael M. Cousins, Chief United States Magistrate Judge, on September 17, 2026.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.