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)

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