Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Campbell Global, LLC v. American States Insurance Co.

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

March 22, 2018

CAMPBELL GLOBAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and BASCOM SOUTHERN, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiffs,
v.
AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation; AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation; GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a New Hampshire corporation; and FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a New Hampshire corporation, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, Chief United States District Judge

         This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Reconsideration [47] filed by Plaintiffs Campbell Global, LLC, and Bascom Southern, LLC; and the Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Exhibits [49] filed by Defendants American States Insurance Company, American Economy Insurance Company, General Insurance Company of America, and First National Insurance Company of America. Plaintiffs alternatively move for entry of a partial final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as to the Stage One claim for breach of contract. Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration, but do not oppose Plaintiffs' alternative Motion for a partial final judgment.

         For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Exhibits [49], DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration [47] in part insofar as Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the Court's Opinion and Order [38], but GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion [47] in part insofar as Plaintiffs' seek a partial, final judgment on the Stage One claim.

         I. Defendants' Motion to Strike

         In their Motion, Defendants move to strike the Declarations of the Honorable Braxton L. Kittrell, Jr. [48-1], Edward F. Travis [48-2], and Tony Logan [48-3], the arbitrators in the underlying arbitration. In those Declarations the arbitrators each indicate they intended the Arbitration Award to sound in both contract and in negligence, and not solely in contract as this Court found in its Opinion and Order [38]. Defendants move to strike the Declarations on two bases: (1) the Declarations were not part of the stipulated record on summary judgment and, therefore, the Court should not consider them on this Motion for Reconsideration; and (2) even if Plaintiffs had included the arbitrators' Declarations in the record on summary judgment, they would have been inadmissible.

         The Court agrees with Defendants on both bases. In lieu of discovery on the Stage One claims, the parties submitted a stipulated record on summary judgment that did not include the arbitrators' Declarations. Moreover, the Declarations are external to the stipulated record insofar as they were not referenced or otherwise incorporated in the record and did not exist at the time that the parties litigated the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. Consideration of the Declarations at this late date would deprive Defendants of the benefit of their bargain to limit the scope of the summary-judgment record considered while still requiring Defendants to forego the right to discovery before dispositive-motion practice on the Stage One claim. Finally, Plaintiffs have not established any good cause for why they did not previously obtain or include the Declarations in the record on summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court concludes it would be inappropriate to consider the Declarations on Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration.

         In any event, the Court notes the Declarations would be inadmissible. In general, “[p]arties cannot call on arbitrators to explain anything ‘vague and uncertain in their award.'” Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Spectre West Builders Corp., No. CV09-968-PHX-JAT, 2011 WL 488891 (D. Az. Feb. 4, 2011) (quoting Alexander v. McNear, 28 F. 403, 406 (C.C.D. Cal. 1886)); see also Ghebreselassie v. Coleman Sec. Servs., Inc., No. 88-6122, 1990 WL 4661, at *3 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 1990) (noting an “arbitrator's declaration explaining the award, which stated a different basis for his decision” would not have been admissible if the plaintiff had objected). The Court finds the purpose of the arbitrators' Declarations is to explain the basis of the Arbitration Award, and not, as Plaintiffs contend, to explain procedural aspects of the arbitration or to demonstrate the matters submitted and considered by the arbitrators.

         Accordingly, on this record the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Exhibits [49]. The Court will not consider the arbitrators' Declarations or any argument that relies on the arbitrators' Declarations in deciding Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration.

         II. Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration

         As noted, Plaintiffs move the Court to reconsider its Opinion and Order [38] on the basis that the Court clearly erred when it (1) concluded the damages awarded in the arbitration were for breach of contract, and (2) found Defendants did not have a duty to indemnify Plaintiffs for the attorney fees awarded by the arbitrators. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), “any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties . . . may be revised at any time before the entry of judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). “A motion for reconsideration can be granted if the court 1) is presented with new evidence, 2) committed clear error or the first decision was manifestly unjust, or 3) is aware of an intervening change in law.” Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., No. 3:12-cv-01065-HZ, 2015 WL 9918263, at *1 (D. Or. Apr. 1, 2015). Parties seeking reconsideration must do more than “re-rais[e] arguments previously made or assert[ ] new legal theories or new facts which could have been presented before the initial hearing.” Sam v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., No. 03:13-cv-01521-MO, 2013 WL 6817888, at *2 (D. Or. Dec. 23, 2013).

         Plaintiffs' arguments regarding the Court's finding that the Arbitration Award sounded in contract are largely re-statements of the arguments that they made during the course of litigating the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the Court concludes Plaintiffs have failed to establish the Court clearly erred in so finding.

         Plaintiffs also contend the Court clearly erred when it found Defendants did not have a duty to indemnify Plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs that the arbitrators found Plaintiffs liable to pay. Defendants rely on Hunters Ridge Condominium Ass'n v. Sherwood Crossing, LLC, 395 P.3d 892, 904-06 (Or. Ct. App. 2017), to argue the attorney fees should have been covered under the policies as supplementary payments, not as damages for the breach of contract.

         As the Court noted in its Opinion and Order, the only apparent basis for the award of attorney fees by the arbitrators was the lease between Plaintiffs and the Grays. Op. and Or. [38], at 10. Moreover, the arbitrators expressly included the attorney fees and costs in the award of damages. The Arbitration Award provided:

         As to the Claimants' remaining claims for negligence and breach of contract, the Respondents' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.