1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AIU INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 20-cv-07469-JSC

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE: STIPULATION FOR

9 v. ENTRY OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 54(b) 10 MCKESSON CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 152 Defendant. 11

12 13 The parties have stipulated that the Court enter judgment, under Federal Rule of Civil 14 Procedure 54(b), of the Court’s partial summary judgment order, (Dkt. No. 142).1 (Dkt. No. 152; 15 see Dkt. Nos. 149, 150.) 16 “When an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . or when multiple parties are 17 involved,” Rule 54(b) allows a court to “direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but 18 fewer than all, claims or parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The Court’s partial summary judgment 19 order is “sufficiently divisible from the other claims such that the case would not inevitably come 20 back to this court on the same set of facts.” Jewel v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 810 F.3d 622, 628 (9th 21 Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). Resolution of an appeal of the proposed Rule 54(b) judgment will answer 22 threshold questions of policy coverage and “streamline further litigation.” Cont’l Airlines, Inc. v. 23 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 819 F.2d 1519, 1525 (9th Cir. 1987). Additionally, there is no just 24 reason for delay, as all parties have stipulated to Rule 54(b) judgment and such a judgment will 25 serve judicial administrative interests as well. See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 26 U.S. 1, 8 (1980). Finally, a stay pending resolution of an appeal of the proposed Rule 54(b) 27 1 || judgment is appropriate here. See CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962); e.g., St. 2 Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Tessera, Inc., No. C-12-01827 RMW, 2013 WL 5400521, at *3 (N.D. 3 Cal. Sept. 26, 2013), rev’d on other grounds, 624 F. App’x 535 (9th Cir. 2015). 4 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the stipulation, (Dkt. No. 152), and: 5 1. ENTERS JUDGMENT pursuant to Rule 54(b) on its Order dated April 5, 2022, 6 (Dkt. No. 142), which granted partial summary judgment in favor of National 7 Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (“NU”) and ACE Property and 8 Casualty Insurance Company (“ACE”), denied partial summary judgment for 9 McKesson, and ruled that NU has no duty to defend McKesson under Policy No. 10 5443284 July 1, 2008 — July 1, 2009) and ACE has no duty to defend McKesson 11 under Policy No. XOO G27610390 001 (July 1, 2015 — July 1, 2016) with respect 12 to the following lawsuits: (a) County of Cuyahoga v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., 13 No. 17-OP-45004 (N.D. Ohio); (b) County of Summit v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et 14 al., No. 18-OP-45090 (N.D. Ohio); and (c) Oklahoma v. McKesson Corp., No. CJ- 3 15 2020-84 (Bryan Cnty., Okla.); and a 16 2. STAYS all remaining claims in Case Nos. 20-cv-07469-JSC and 20-cv-09356-JSC 3 17 pending the resolution of any appeal of the Rule 54(b) judgment. (See Dkt. No. 18 84.) 19 || McKesson’s motion for entry of judgment, (Dkt. No. 149), and the earlier stipulation, (Dkt. No. 20 150), are DENIED as moot. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: July 6, 2022 23

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE

25 United States District Judge 26 27 28