Amur Equipment Finance, Inc. v. CHD Transport, Inc.
ORDER DIRECTING Plaintiff to Supplement Record Regarding Applicable Law. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/4/2017. (Timken, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AMUR EQUIPMENT FINANCE, INC.,
CHD TRANSPORT, INC. dba SINGH
TRANSPORTATION, et al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00416-AWI-SKO
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
SUPPLEMENT RECORD REGARDING
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Default Judgment (the “Motion”)
19 against Defendants CHD Transport Inc. d/b/a Singh Transportation (“CHD”) and Balvinder Singh
20 (“Singh”) (collectively “Defendants”). (Doc. 22.) After reviewing the Motion, and Plaintiff’s
21 Memorandum of Law in Support of its Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Doc. 28), the Court
22 notes that Plaintiff does not address whether, pursuant to the subject agreements’ choice of law
23 provision , Nebraska law governs the determination of issues relating to the agreements, including
24 the merits Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims, applicability of prejudgment interest, and
Plaintiff’s complaint includes claims against CHD for breaches of the 930282 Finance Agreement and the 931428
Finance Agreement, and claims against Singh for breaches of the 930282 Singh Guaranty and the 931428 Singh
Guaranty. (See Doc. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 43–56.) The 930282 Finance Agreement and the 931428 Finance Agreement
include an identical choice-of-law provision that states they “shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the
State of Nebraska without reference to its principles of conflicts of law.” (Compl., Exs. A , C.) This “governing law”
provision also “appl[ies] to any action to enforce” the 930282 Singh Guaranty and the 931428 Singh Guaranty. (Id.)
1 Plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees. Nor does Plaintiff address whether, assuming Nebraska law
2 applies, it can recover for attorney’s fees and for prejudgment interest on those fees and costs.
3 The Court finds that resolution of these is necessary for the adjudication of Plaintiff’s Motion.
Accordingly, by no later than Friday, October 13, 2017, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff
5 file a supplemental brief, of no more than fifteen (15) pages in length, addressing:
(1) whether, under California choice of law analysis, the choice of law provision in the
agreements is enforceable2;
(2) assuming the provision is enforceable, whether, under California choice of law
analysis, Nebraska or California law applies to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims;
(3) assuming the provision is enforceable, whether, under California choice of law
analysis, Nebraska or California law governs Plaintiff’s requests for attorney’s fees and
prejudgment interest on those fees and costs; and
(4) assuming Nebraska law applies, whether Plaintiff can recover attorney’s fees and
prejudgment interest on those fees and costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 4, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
It appears California choice of law rules would apply regardless of the fact that the parties agreed that Nebraska law
would govern “without reference to its principles of conflicts of laws.” See JMP Sec. LLP v. Altair Nanotechnologies
Inc., No. 11-4498 SC, 2012 WL 892157, at *6 and n.1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2012).
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?