PG&E Corporation v. AECOM Technical Services, Inc..

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 6 — 7 JH KELLY, LLC, Case No. 20-cv-05381-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION RE JH KELLY, 9 v. LLC’S QUANTUM MERUIT/ABANDONMENT CLAIM 10 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., 11 Defendant. — 12 — 13 The Court’s Order granting AECOM Technical Services, Inc.’s (“AECOM”) Motion for 14 Partial Summary Judgment (“Order”) found that JH Kelly, LLC (“JH Kelly”) waived all its claims 15 for labor and material furnished through September 12, 2018 by executing a document that said 16 “[T]his document will become effective to release and relinquish pro tanto any and all claims and 17 lien rights [JH Kelly] may have for and in connection with the above-referenced project for said 18 labor performed and materials furnished through such date.” See Dkt. No. 229 at 10-15. As part 19 of JH Kelly’s motion to reconsider that Order, JH Kelly argued that “it is unclear . . . whether the 20 Court intended for its ruling to apply to Kelly’s quantum meruit/abandonment claim.” Dkt. No. 21 234 at 5. The Court construes this request to be one for clarification that does not require a 22 “substantive change of mind by the court.” Bordallo v. Reyes, 763 F.2d 1098, 1102 (9th Cir. 23 1985) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Wahl v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., No. 0824 CV-0555-RS, 2010 WL 2867130 , at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2010) (“A court may clarify its order 25 for any reason.”). 26 The Order did not address the extent to which JH Kelly’s lien waivers also released its 27 quantum meruit/abandonment claim. That claim alleges that the Subcontract is no longer 1 City of Thousand Oaks, 27 Cal. 4th 228, 238 , 38 P.3d 1120 (2002). The parties did not raise, and 2 the Order thus did not address, the issue of whether a finding that the Subcontract is abandoned 3 || would mean that JH Kelly’s lien waivers—which JH Kelly contends were either part of the 4 Subcontract or at least submitted as a requirement of the Subcontract—are also abandoned and 5 inapplicable. The Court accordingly confirms that the Order’s grant of partial summary judgment 6 || based on JH Kelly’s lien waivers did not apply to JH Kelly’s guantum meruit/abandonment claim. 7 The Court directed the parties to file supplemental briefs on this novel issue, but their 8 || briefs failed to identify controlling authority and instead raised even more new substantive 9 arguments. See Dkt. Nos. 245, 246. The dispositive motion hearing deadline and the pretrial 10 || conference have passed. The appropriate time to raise and resolve core dispositive disputes in 11 advance of trial was months ago, as required by the Court’s original schedule. The Court will not q 12 entertain any further motion for reconsideration, clarification, or their equivalent with respect to 5 13. || this issue. B15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: 6/1/2022 Aspe Sb 8 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. Z 18 United States District Judge — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —