Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company
- William Orrick
- 3:24-cv-06367
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company, Judge Orrick denied separate judgment and immediate appeal but partly granted schedule changes.
Tetra Tech EC, Inc. and AIG Specialty Insurance Company; the order governs whether the earlier duty-to-defend ruling could receive separate judgment or immediate appellate review and adjusts the schedule for the remaining claims.
What happened
Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company involved Tetra Tech’s request to immediately appeal an earlier ruling that AIG had no duty to defend it in underlying cases. Other claims, including indemnification, bad faith, and reimbursement, remained unresolved.
Tetra Tech asked for a final judgment on the duty-to-defend issue or, alternatively, permission for an immediate appeal. Tetra Tech also asked to delay the schedule for AIG’s pending motion for summary judgment. AIG opposed these requests.
Judge William H. Orrick denied Tetra Tech’s request for entry of judgment and its alternative request for an immediate appeal, concluding that an early appeal would not streamline the case and could delay it. He partly granted Tetra Tech’s scheduling request, vacated the November 5 hearing, and set new briefing dates while keeping the December 10 hearing on AIG’s motion.
The detailed version
- Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company · No. 3:24-cv-06367
- William Orrick
- Oct. 29, 2025
Background
The court had previously ruled that AIG had no duty to defend Tetra Tech in the underlying cases. Claims for indemnification and bad faith, along with AIG’s reimbursement claim, remained to be decided. AIG also filed a motion for summary judgment addressing the remaining issues.
Tetra Tech filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) seeking entry of a final judgment on the duty-to-defend issue so it could immediately appeal that ruling. In the alternative, Tetra Tech sought certification for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which permits an immediate appeal of certain nonfinal orders. Tetra Tech separately filed an administrative motion asking to delay the briefing and hearing schedule for AIG’s summary-judgment motion until after the court ruled on the request for entry of judgment.
Rule 54(b) Motion
Rule 54(b) permits a court to enter a final judgment on fewer than all claims only when there is no just reason for delay. The court explained that it considers whether the resolved claims are separate from the remaining claims and whether an appeal would avoid repeated review of the same legal or factual issues.
Judge Orrick concluded that the duty-to-defend issue was not sufficiently separate from the remaining claims. The remaining indemnification, bad faith, and reimbursement issues involved similar legal or factual issues. The court also noted that AIG’s pending summary-judgment motion might resolve those issues, making an immediate appeal inefficient.
The court likewise rejected Tetra Tech’s alternative request for interlocutory-appeal certification. It stated that Tetra Tech’s disagreement with the earlier ruling and its argument that California law had been applied incorrectly did not establish the required substantial ground for a difference of opinion. The court also concluded that an immediate appeal would not materially advance the end of the litigation and instead would significantly delay it.
Administrative Motion and Disposition
The court denied Tetra Tech’s motion for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b). It also rejected the alternative request for interlocutory-appeal certification. The November 5, 2025 hearing on that motion was vacated.
The court granted in part Tetra Tech’s administrative motion. Tetra Tech’s opposition to AIG’s summary-judgment motion became due November 12, 2025, AIG’s reply became due November 19, 2025, and the hearing on that motion remained scheduled for December 10, 2025, at 2:00 p.m.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.