Exxon Mobil Corporation v. AECOM Energy & Construction, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Montana
• Decided: February 15, 2024
• Docket: 1:19-cv-00107
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

EXXON MOBILE CORPORATION, CV 19-107-BLG-SPW Plaintiff, Vs. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND AECOM ENERGY & RECOMMENDATIONS CONSTRUCTION, INC., and AECOM, Defendants.

Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Timothy Cavan’s Findings and Recommendations, filed January 31, 2024. (Doc. 170). Judge Cavan recommended the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant AECOM Energy & Construction, Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 130), deny Defendant AECOM Energy & Construction, Inc.’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 152), and

grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff Exxon Mobil Corporation’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 137). The parties were required to file written objections within 14 days of the filing of Judge Cavan’s Findings and Recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Neither party objected to the Findings and Recommendations, and so waived their right to de novo review of the record. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This Court reviews for

clear error those findings and recommendations to which no party objects. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Government of Guam v. Guerrero, 11 F.4th 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting CLR. v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 291 (1960)). After reviewing the Findings and Recommendations, this Court does not find that Judge Cavan committed clear error. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Judge Cavan’s Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 170) are ADOPTED IN FULL. 2. Defendant AECOM Energy & Construction, Inc.’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 152) is DENIED with prejudice as to the contractual indemnification evidence and DENIED without prejudice as to the hot spot evidence. 3. Defendant AECOM Energy & Construction, Inc.’s motion for partial summary Judgment (Doc. 130) is GRANTED as to Exxon’s punitive damages claim and DENIED in all other respects. 4. Exxon Mobil’s Corporation’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 137) is GRANTED as to AECOM Energy & Construction Inc.’s Prompt Payment Act claim, cardinal change claim, and unjust enrichment claim, and DENIED in all other respects.

yA DATED this AS” day of February, 2024.

SUSAN P. WATTERS United States District Judge