PG&E Corporation v. AECOM Technical Services, Inc..
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:20-cv-05381
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In JH Kelly v. AECOM, Judge Gilliam ordered certain indemnity, prompt-payment, and fee issues decided by the court after the jury trial.
JH Kelly, LLC and AECOM Technical Services, Inc.; the order also affected how the jury trial and later court proceedings would address their specified claims and requests.
What happened
JH Kelly, LLC and AECOM Technical Services, Inc. asked the court to split certain issues from the jury trial. The order concerned AECOM’s indemnity claims and JH Kelly’s prompt-payment claim and requests for costs, fees, and interest.
The parties agreed that the court, rather than the jury, would decide whether AECOM was entitled to damages related to JH Kelly’s alleged failure to defend AECOM. They also agreed that the court would decide JH Kelly’s prompt-payment claim and its requests for litigation costs, attorney fees, and contractual and statutory interest after the jury returned a verdict.
The court approved the parties’ stipulation and ordered the specified issues bifurcated, meaning separated from the jury trial for later decision by the court. The remaining factual issues in AECOM’s indemnity claims were not bifurcated. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order on January 13, 2022.
The detailed version
- PG&E Corporation v. AECOM Technical Services, Inc.. · No. 4:20-cv-05381
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 13, 2022
Background
JH Kelly, LLC and AECOM Technical Services, Inc. submitted a joint stipulation asking the court to bifurcate, or separate, specified issues from the jury trial. The order identifies JH Kelly as the plaintiff and counterclaim defendant and AECOM as the defendant and counterclaim plaintiff.
AECOM’s Thirteenth Cause of Action for express indemnity and Fourteenth Cause of Action for equitable indemnity included issues concerning AECOM’s claim that JH Kelly had a duty to defend it and owed damages for failing to provide that defense. The parties stated that these issues involved a legal question for the court and that evidence of AECOM’s defense costs could reveal legal strategy and prejudice AECOM during the jury trial.
JH Kelly’s Seventh Claim for Relief alleged a violation of California prompt-payment laws. JH Kelly also sought litigation costs, attorney fees, and contractual and statutory interest. The parties agreed that these matters should be decided by the court after the jury rendered its verdict.
Order
The court ordered that the portions of AECOM’s Thirteenth and Fourteenth Causes of Action concerning the duty to defend and resulting defense fees and costs would be decided by the court after the jury trial. The remaining factual issues in those causes of action would not be bifurcated.
The court also ordered that JH Kelly’s Seventh Claim for Relief under California prompt-payment laws, along with its requests for litigation costs, attorney fees, and contractual and statutory interest, would be decided by the court after the jury returned a verdict. During the jury trial, neither party could introduce, mention, or refer to the specified excluded claims or related damages as described in the stipulation.
The court’s action was based on the parties’ stipulation and invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, which permits separating issues for trial to promote convenience, avoid unfair prejudice, and make the trial more efficient. The order did not decide the merits of the indemnity, prompt-payment, fee, cost, or interest claims. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered the order pursuant to the parties’ stipulation.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.