Twin Rivers Engineering, Inc. v. Fieldpiece Instruments, Inc.

Filing 415

ORDER: (1) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIMS FOR QUANTUM MERUIT AND PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED; AND (2) ORDER RE: PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS by Judge Marilyn L. Huff. (sy)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TWIN RIVERS ENGINEERING, INC., Case No.: 2:16-cv-04502-MLH (MRWx) Plaintiff, 12 13 14 FIELDPIECE INSTRUMENTS, INC.; and CHY FIREMATE CO., LTD., ORDER: v. 15 Defendants. 16 (1) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS FOR QUANTUM MERUIT AND PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED; AND 17 (2) ORDER RE: PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS 18 19 20 On April 24, 2018, the Court issued an order on the parties’ cross-motions for 21 summary judgment. (Doc. No. 368.) In the order, the Court granted summary judgment 22 in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant CHY on CHY’s breach of contract counterclaim 23 on the grounds that the counterclaim is barred by the applicable four-year statute of 24 limitations, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 2.725. (Doc. No. 368 at 32-34, 37.) 25 On May 20, 2018, Plaintiff submitted the parties’ proposed pretrial order to the 26 Court’s e-file inbox. 1 In their proposed pretrial order, the parties note that there is a dispute 27 28 1 The Court notes that the proposed pretrial order was untimely. 1 2:16-cv-04502-MLH (MRWx) 1 as to whether Defendants’ counterclaims for quantum meruit and promissory estoppel 2 should be included in the pretrial order. In light of this, the Court orders Defendants to 3 show cause as to why their counterclaims for quantum meruit and promissory estoppel 4 should not be dismissed in light of the holdings set forth in the Court’s April 24, 2018 5 summary judgment order. See Pepi Corp. v. Galliford, 254 S.W.3d 457, 461 (Tex. App. 6 2007) (holding that quantum meruit claims are governed by a four-year statute of 7 limitations); Iron Mountain Bison Ranch, Inc. v. Easley Trailer Mfg., Inc., 42 S.W.3d 149, 8 160 (Tex. App. 2000) (“Generally, a party may recover under quantum meruit only if no 9 express contract covers the services or materials furnished.”); Prestige Ford Garland Ltd. 10 P’ship v. Morales, 336 S.W.3d 833, 836 (Tex. App. 2011) (“A promissory estoppel cause 11 of action is governed by a four-year statute of limitations.”). 12 The parties should be prepared to discuss the potential dismissal of these 13 counterclaims at the May 24, 2018 pretrial conference. In addition, the parties should be 14 prepared to discuss at the pretrial conference, in the event that the counterclaims remain in 15 the action, whether the counterclaims should be severed from the jury trial set to begin on 16 May 29, 2018. 17 In addition, the Court notes that along with the proposed pretrial order, Defendants 18 submitted their proposed jury instructions to the Court’s e-file inbox. This submission did 19 not comply with the Court’s April 26, 2018 amended scheduling order. (Doc. No. 372.) 20 That scheduling order provides as follows: 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court orders the parties to file proposed jury instructions on or before May 29, 2018. Copies of the jury instructions are to be filed with the Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (“CM/ECF”) system. Additionally, the Court orders the parties to send to chambers via the Court’s e-file e-mail address a clean copy of the requested jury instructions with “Court’s Instruction No. _____” behind each annotated instruction. The clean instructions must be sent to chambers by May 29, 2018. The clean instructions must be on pleading paper in Times New Roman, 14-point font, must be double-spaced, and must not have any header, footer, or page numbers. Further, the clean instructions must be fully completed and in a format that could be read to the jury if adopted by the Court. The parties must 2 2:16-cv-04502-MLH (MRWx) 1 2 remove any brackets, fill in blanks, and make the necessary selections where applicable to any model instructions. 3 (Doc. No. 372 at 5.) Defendants’ submission of their proposed jury instructions did not 4 comply with the above paragraph because the proposed jury instruction were submitted to 5 the Court’s e-file inbox rather than filed on the docket via the Court’s CM/ECF system, 6 and Defendants did not submit the required “clean copy” of the proposed jury instructions 7 to the Court’s efile inbox. The Court reminds the parties that they are expected to know 8 and follow the procedures and deadlines set forth in the Court’s April 26, 2018 amended 9 scheduling order. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: May 21, 2018 12 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 2:16-cv-04502-MLH (MRWx)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?