PG&E Corporation v. AECOM Technical Services, Inc..

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 13, 2022
• Docket: 4:20-cv-05381
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Mmaarriioonn. hTa.c Hk@actkr o(Suttmatea nB.caor mN o. 179216) Eerriicc. gAr.a Gsbraesrbgeerrg@ers (taodeml.citotemd pro hac vice) 2 Luke N. Eaton (State Bar No. 280387) Edward C. Duckers (SB #242113) luke.eaton@troutman.com ed.duckers@stoel.comMario R. 3 William Taylor (admitted pro hac vice) Nicholas (SB #273122) william.taylor@troutman.com mario.nicholas@stoel.com 4 TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON STOEL RIVES LLP SANDERS LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000 5 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400 Portland, OR 97205 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 503.224.3380 6 Telephone: 213.928.9800 Facsimile: 503.220.2480 Facsimile: 213.928.9850 7 Attorneys for JH Kelly, LLC 8 Attorneys for AECOM Technical Services, Inc. 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 OAKLAND DIVISION 13 JH KELLY, LLC Case No. 4:20-cv-05381-HSG (Lead Case) 14 Plaintiff, (Reference withdrawn from Bankruptcy Case No. 19-30088, Adv. Proc. No. 20- 15 vs. 03019 and Adv. Proc. No. 19-03008) 16 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., et (Consolidated with Case No. 3:20-cv- al. 08463-EMC) 17 Defendant. ORDER ON STIPULATION TO 18 BIFURCATE AECOM’S THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH 19 CAUSES OF ACTION FOR INDEMNITY AND JH KELLY’S 20 CLAIMS FOR COSTS, ATTORNEY FEES, INTEREST, AND STATUTORY 21 PENALTIES 22 23 24 Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant JH Kelly, LLC (“JHK”) and Defendant and 25 Counterclaim Plaintiff AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (“AECOM”) (collectively, the 26 “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, stipulate as follows: 27 /// 28 /// 2 Trial Order to clarify and narrow the contested issues for trial. 3 WHEREAS, the Parties agree that AECOM’s Thirteenth Cause of Action for Express 4 Indemnity and Fourteenth Cause of Action for Equitable Indemnity as they apply to AECOM’s 5 claims of duty to defend against JHK and resulting damages for the claim of failure to defend, 6 involve a legal issue for the Court to determine, and therefore are not appropriate for the jury. 7 See Centex Homes v. R-Help Constr. Co., 32 Cal. App. 5th 1230, 1232 (2019). Furthermore, 8 evidence of damages for these causes of action consists of AECOM’s legal bills which, if 9 provided to the jury, would be prejudicial to AECOM in potentially revealing legal strategy for 10 the remaining claims and defenses at issue in the trial. 11 WHEREAS, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, for convenience, to avoid 12 unfair prejudice, and to expedite and economize the trial, the Parties seek to bifurcate AECOM’s 13 Thirteenth and Fourteenth Causes of Action, as they pertain to the duty to defend and defense fees 14 and costs only, to be heard by the Court, following the jury trial on the remaining claims. 15 WHEREAS, the Parties agree that AECOM will not introduce, mention, or refer to 16 evidence of its damages related to the claim that JH Kelly failed to defend AECOM, during the 17 pendency of the jury trial. 18 WHEREAS, the Parties also agree that JHK’s Seventh Claim for Relief for Violation of 19 California Prompt Payment Laws against AECOM and JHK’s requests for litigation costs, 20 attorney fees and contractual and statutory interest, are to be determined by the Court after the 21 jury has rendered a verdict. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. § 54(d) (discussing costs and fees); see Radio 22 Television Espanola S.A. v. New World Entertainment, Ltd. (9th Cir. 1999) 183 F.3d 922, 929 23 (bill of costs filed after entry of judgment); Port of Stockton v. Western Bulk Carrier KS, 371 F.3d 24 1119, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2004) (fee request made by post-trial motion); United Riggers & 25 Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., 4 Cal. 5th 1082, 1086 (2018) (discussing prompt 26 payment penalties awarded to prevailing party); Barnard v. Theobald, 721 F.3d 1069, 1078 (9th 27 Cir. 2013) (District court has discretion to determine interest after jury renders a verdict). 28 1 WHEREAS, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42, for convenience, to avoid 2 || prejudice, and to expedite and economize the trial, the Parties seek to bifurcate JHK’s Seventh 3 || Claim for Relief for Violation of California Prompt Payment Laws against AECOM as well as 4 | JHK’s requests for litigation costs, attorney fees and contractual and statutory interest, to be 5 || determined by the Court, after a jury verdict has been rendered. 6 WHEREAS, the Parties agree that JHK will not introduce, mention, or refer to its Seventh 7 || Claim for Relief for Violation of California Prompt Payment Laws against AECOM or introduce 8 | evidence of its related damages including litigation costs, attorney fees, or contractual or statutory 9 || interest during the pendency of the jury trial. 10 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Parties, by and through their 11 || respective counsel, hereby STIPULATE and AGREE as follows: 12 1. AECOM’s Thirteenth Cause of Action for Express Indemnity and Fourteenth 13 || Cause of Action for Equitable Indemnity as they apply to AECOM’s claims of duty to defend 14 | against JHK and resulting damages for the claim of failure to defend against JHK shall be 15 || bifurcated to be decided by the Court following the conclusion of the jury trial; however, the 16 || remaining factual issues in these Causes of Action shall not be bifurcated. 17 2. JHK’s Seventh Claim for Relief for Violation of California Prompt Payment Laws 18 || against AECOM and JHK’s requests for litigation costs, attorney fees and contractual and 19 || statutory interest, shall be bifurcated to be decided by the Court, after the jury has rendered a 20 || verdict in the trial. 21 22 | PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 | DATED: 1/13/2022 25 Aprwrrl 4 Abt) HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 26 United Stated District Judge 27 28 3 CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05381-HSG