Power Quality & Electrical Systems, Inc. et al v. BP West Coast Products LLC

Filing 88

JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 2/22/18. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

WEINTRAUB TOBIN CHEDIAK COLEMAN GRODIN LAW CORPORATION
Lukas J. Clary (Bar No. 251519)
400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE, P.C.
David J. Simmons (Mo. Bar NO. 53801) (pro hac vice)
Daniel R. Garner (Mo. Bar NO. 60677) (pro hac vice)
10 South Broadway, Ste. 2000
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
BP West Coast Products LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
OAKLAND DIVISION

14
15
16
17

Case NO.: 4:16-cv-04791-YGR

Power Quality & Electrical Systems, Inc., a
California corporation; Rajinder K. Singh, an
individual; Tejindar P. Singh, an individual,

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs/Counterclaim

________________________________________

Defendants,

18
19
20

BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC, a
Washington limited liability company

21
22

Judge: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

v.

Defendant/Counterclaim
Plaintiff.

23
24
25
26
27
28
1
CASE NO: 4:16-cv-04791-YGR; [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1

This matter comes to the Court on Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff BP West Coast Products

2

LLC (“BPWCP”)’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 54.) The Court has entered summary

3

judgment in BPWCP’s favor on all of Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants’ Power Quality and

4

Electrical Systems, Inc.’s (“PQES”), Tejindar Singh’s, and Rajinder Singh’s (collectively

5

“Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants”) remaining claims, and dismissed Counts I, II, IV, VI, VII, and

6

X of BPWCP’s Counterclaims (all brought in the alternative only) as untimely pursuant to the statute

7

of limitations. (Dkt. No. 71.) The Court has also entered summary judgment in BPWCP’s favor as

8

to liability on Counts III, V, VII, and IX of its Counterclaims. (Dkt. No. 81.)

9

In response to the Court’s order (Dkt. No. 83), BPWCP filed a submission seeking to

10

establish the admissibility of its evidence in support of its claimed damages on Counts III, V, VII,

11

and IX of its Counterclaims. (Dkt. No. 84.) Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants filed a response that

12

disputed the underlying ruling on the motion for summary judgment but acknowledged that

13

BPWCP’s evidence of its damages on Counts III, V, VII, and IX of its Counterclaims is admissible

14

for the purpose of assessing the amount of damages to be included in a final judgment. (Dkt. No.

15

85).

16

In response, the Court entered an order directing BPWCP to file a form of judgment whereby

17

the Court may enter its final judgment in the case. (Dkt. No. 86.) Having been so advised and

18

having reviewed the record including evidence of damages, the Court hereby enters final judgment

19

in the case as follows:

20

1. The Court dismisses all claims in Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants’ Second

21

Amended Complaint with prejudice for the reasons described in the Court’s

22

previous orders (Dkt. Nos. 36, 71.);

23

2. The Court dismisses Counts I, II, IV, VI, VII, and X of BPWCP’s

24

Counterclaims with prejudice for the reasons described in the Court’s previous

25

order (Dkt. No. 71.);

26

3. The Court grants final judgment in BPWCP’s favor and against

27

Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants Rajinder K. Singh and Tejindar P. Singh

28
2
CASE NO: 4:16-cv-04791-YGR; [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1

as to liability on Counts III, V, VII, and IX of its Counterclaims for the

2

reasons described in its previous order (Dkt. No. 81.);

3

4. The Court grants final judgment in BPWCP’s favor and against

4

Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants Rajinder K. Singh and Tejindar P. Singh

5

as to damages on Counts III, V, VII, and IX of its Counterclaims in the

6

amount of $1,982,774, exclusive of BPWCP’s attorneys’ fees and costs;

7

5. Having been advised that the parties have met and conferred regarding an

8

award of attorneys’ fees and costs to BPWCP and that they believe they need

9

additional time to reach an agreement regarding any award of attorneys’ fees

10

and costs, the Court orders the Parties to continue their ongoing meet and

11

confer regarding attorneys’ fees and costs. The parties shall jointly file a

12

notice with the Court on or before March 9, 2018 identifying whether they

13

have reached such a stipulation. If the parties have reached a stipulation, they

14

will prepare for the Court an amended final judgment, which will include the

15

attorney’s fees and costs for the Court to sign. If the parties have not reached

16

a stipulation as to the amount of attorneys’ fees by March 9, 2018, then the

17

Court orders the following:

18

a.

19
20

respect to any Bill of Costs BPWCP may file;
b.

21
22

The parties shall comply with Local Rule 54-1-54-4 with

BPWCP shall file a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs by
April 9, 2018;

c.

Plaintiffs/Counterclaim

Defendants

shall

file

any

23

opposition to BPWCP’s Motion within 14 days after the

24

filing of BPWCP’s Motion;

25

d.

26
27
28

BPWCP

shall

file

any

reply

within

7

days

of

Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants’ Opposition; and
e.

The Court shall thereafter enter an order addressing
BPWCP’s Motion.
3
CASE NO: 4:16-cv-04791-YGR; [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1
2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

DATED: ________________
February 22, 2018

By:

____________________________
Honorable Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
CASE NO: 4:16-cv-04791-YGR; [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

DATED: February 19, 2018

Respectfully submitted:
WEINTRAUB TOBIN CHEDIAK COLEMAN GRODIN LAW
CORPORATION
Lukas J. Clary (Bar No. 251519)
400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE, P.C.
David M. Simmons (Mo. Bar NO. 53801) (pro hac vice)
Daniel R. Garner (Mo. Bar NO. 60677) (pro hac vice)
10 South Broadway, Ste. 2000
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
By

/s/ Daniel R. Garner
Attorneys for BP West Coast Products LLC

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
CASE NO: 4:16-cv-04791-YGR; [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT