Yahoo! Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA

Filing 139

CORRECTED ORDER RE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9; DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 4/17/2019. (ejdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2019)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 YAHOO! INC., Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, Case No. 5:17-cv-00489-EJD CORRECTED ORDER RE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9; DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Re: Dkt. Nos. 126, 127 Defendant. A. National’s Union’s Motion National Union requests (1) leave to file supplemental authorities in support of its Motion 15 in Limine No. 9 regarding whether the jury or the court decides the amount of Brandt fees if the 16 jury returns a bad faith finding, and (2) a ruling on Motion in Limine No. 9. Dkt. No. 126. 17 National Union’s requests are GRANTED. 18 Having considered the supplemental authorities, the court finds that absent a stipulation by 19 the parties, National Union is entitled to have the jury decide the amount of Brandt fees if the jury 20 returns a bad faith finding. See Monster, LLC v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. App. 5th 1214, 1229 21 (2017) (“Numerous . . . cases decided both before and after Brandt have . . . recognized that 22 ‘[a]lthough fee issues are usually addressed to the trial court in the form of a posttrial motion, fees 23 as damages are pleaded and proved by the party claiming them and are decided by the jury unless 24 the parties stipulate to a posttrial procedure.’”). Although not cited by National Union, the Ninth 25 Circuit’s holding in Metropolitan Business Management, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 448 Fed. Appx. 26 677, 679 (9th Cir. 2011), is consistent with Monster. See also American Color Graphics, Inc. v. 27 Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, No. 04-3518 SBA, 2007 WL 9728853, at *9 28 Case No.: 5:17-cv-00489-EJD ORDER RE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9; DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 1 1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2007) (stating that language of Brandt “is clear that fees must be determined 2 by the trier of fact absent a stipulation”). 3 B. Yahoo’s Motion 4 Yahoo moves for reconsideration of the court’s order granting National Union’s Motion in 5 Limine No. 6, which limited Yahoo’s damages to the time value of money for 30 days. Dkt. No. 6 127. Yahoo contends that the time value of money theory is speculative and not based on the 7 parties’ obligations under the 2011 Policy. Yahoo’s Motion for Recon., p. 2 (Dkt. No. 127). 8 Yahoo contends that its damages should not be limited to the time value of money for 30 days, and 9 that instead, Yahoo is entitled to recover prejudgment interest on the $3,048,598 Yahoo paid to 10 defend the underlying lawsuits, beginning in October 2013 through entry of judgment in this case. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 The court has reviewed the relevant pleadings and evidence and reaffirms its prior ruling 12 that the measure of damages is the time value of money for 30 days because Yahoo was required 13 to reimburse National Union pursuant to the terms of the Deductible Coverage Endorsement. 14 Yahoo’s motion for reconsideration is accordingly denied. 15 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 17, 2019 ______________________________________ EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:17-cv-00489-EJD ORDER RE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9; DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 2

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?