Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02445/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02445-50/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Property Damage

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

Error! Unknown document property name.

Law Offices of 

MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME, LLP

RICHARD S. LINKERT, ESQ. (SBN 88756) 

KATHERINE E. UNDERWOOD, ESQ. (SBN 249308) 

3638 American River Drive 

Sacramento, CA 95864 

Telephone: (916) 978-3434 

Facsimile: (916) 978-3430 

Attorneys for Defendant and Crossclaimant, W.M. BEATY 

AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, et al., 

Defendants. 

___________________________________ 

W.M. BEATY AND ASSOCIATES, INC., 

Crossclaimant, 

v. 

SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, 

Crossdefendant. 

Case No. 2:09-CV-02445-KJM-EFB

STIPULATION FOR BIFURCATION OF 

INDEMNITY AND ORDER 

Pursuant to Local Rule 281(b)(18) and Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

W.M. Beaty & Associates, Inc. (“Beaty”) and Sierra Pacific Industries (“Sierra Pacific”), by and 

through their undersigned counsel, hereby submit the following Stipulation and Proposed Order 

(1) bifurcating Beaty’s crossclaims for Total and Partial Equitable Indemnity and Contribution, 

Negligence, Implied Contractual Indemnity, and Declaratory Relief against Sierra Pacific 

Case 2:09-cv-02445-WBS-AC Document 472 Filed 05/22/12 Page 1 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

Error! Unknown document property name.

(collectively, the “Indemnity Claims”) from Plaintiff United States of America’s (“United 

States”) underlying claims of common law and statutory negligence against all defendants (the 

“Plaintiff’s Claims”); and (2) deferring pretrial briefing of issues relating to the Indemnity Claims 

until trial of the Plaintiff’s claims concludes in the above captioned Moonlight Fire Case. 

RECITALS 

1. On or about August 31, 2009, the United States commenced the Moonlight Fire 

Case by filing a Complaint alleging that Beaty, Landowner Defendants, and Sierra Pacific, 

together with Eunice Howell, individually and doing business as Howell’s Forest Harvesting 

Company (collectively “Defendants”) are jointly and severally liable for damages resulting from 

the Moonlight Fire, which ignited on September 3, 2007, in Plumas County. Defendants 

answered the United States’ Complaint and denied liability, and also asserted affirmative 

defenses. 

2. On or about January 15, 2010, Beaty filed its Indemnity Claims alleging that Sierra 

Pacific must defend and indemnify Beaty for, inter alia, any judgment entered against Defendants 

with respect to the Plaintiff’s Claims. On or about February 22, 2010, Sierra Pacific answered 

Beaty’s crossclaims and denied liability, and also asserted affirmative defenses. 

3. On February 13, 2012, Judge Mueller ordered the parties to the Moonlight Fire 

Case to file a joint pretrial statement by May 24, 2012. Local Rule 281(b)(18) requires the parties 

to determine whether separate trials of any issues in the case is feasible and advisable. 

4. Bifurcation promotes efficiency and fairness, and could significantly reduce timedemands on the Court and the jury in the Moonlight Fire Case. Regardless of the outcome of the 

Plaintiff’s Claims, that disposition will affect the claims at issue in the Indemnity Claims. At that 

point, either the United States will not have prevailed and the Indemnity Claims may not need to 

be pursued, thereby rendering further proceedings unnecessary, or the United States will have 

prevailed and a finding will be entered regarding how the Moonlight Fire was caused, which will 

enable Beaty and Sierra Pacific to determine whether the Indemnity Claims can be settled or 

resolved pursuant to a stipulated resolution or, alternatively, whether an indemnity trial will be 

Case 2:09-cv-02445-WBS-AC Document 472 Filed 05/22/12 Page 2 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

Error! Unknown document property name.

necessary. 

5. In addition, Beaty and Sierra Pacific further agree that bifurcating the trial of the 

claims will also avoid prejudice that would be caused to Defendants during trial of the Plaintiff’s 

Claims by forcing Defendants to discuss insurance issues in front of the jury while it is 

considering liability for the Moonlight Fire, in violation of Rule 411 of the Federal Rules of 

Evidence. This is because insurance issues are linked with the indemnity provision in the TSA, 

and the Federal Rules of Evidence Advisory Committee Notes explain that this information is 

prejudicial insofar as it “would induce juries to decide cases on improper grounds.” Fed. R. Evid. 

411 Advisory Committee’s Notes 1972. In comparison, bifurcating the claims would permit the 

jury in the Moonlight Fire Case to evaluate liability issues regarding the Plaintiff’s Claims 

without regard to the indemnity issues and insurance issues related to the Indemnity Claims. 

Bifurcation would also avoid further prejudice that Defendants may suffer by being forced to use 

time in an already complex case on indemnity issues that may never need to be litigated following 

resolution of the Plaintiff’s Claims in the Moonlight Fire Case. 

6. For the foregoing reasons, Beaty and Sierra Pacific agree that pursuant to Local 

Rule 281(b)(18), bifurcating and trying separately the Indemnity Claims from the Plaintiff’s 

Claims in the Moonlight Fire Case will be both feasible and advisable, and pursuant to FRCP 

42(b), will be more convenient, expeditious, and economical for the parties and the Court, and 

will avoid prejudice for Defendants. 

7. If the Indemnity Claims are bifurcated, Beaty and Sierra Pacific further agree to 

postpone pretrial briefing of the indemnity issues until it is determined whether a trial on those 

claims will be necessary. Doing so is more efficient and expeditious for the parties and the Court 

because these issues may never need to be briefed if trial of the Indemnity Claims becomes 

unnecessary. 

Pursuant to the foregoing recitals, the parties hereby agree and stipulate to the following: 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:09-cv-02445-WBS-AC Document 472 Filed 05/22/12 Page 3 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

Error! Unknown document property name.

STIPULATION 

 Based on the foregoing recitals, the parties hereby STIPULATE that: 

1. Indemnity will be bifurcated and tried, if necessary, after the liability and/or 

damages phase(s) of the Moonlight Fire Case has/have been completed; 

2. Beaty and Sierra Pacific retain their rights to a trial by jury of the Indemnity 

Claims, if a trial is necessary; 

3. The issues pertaining to the Indemnity Claims that would otherwise need to be 

included in the joint pretrial statement that is due to be filed in the Moonlight Fire Case on May 

24, 2012, need not be briefed at this time, and Beaty and Sierra Pacific agree to defer this briefing 

until after trial of the Plaintiff’s claims concludes and it is determined whether trial of the 

Indemnity Claims will be required, or until such time as the Court directs. Defendants will work 

cooperatively together and with the Court to set a date for filing a joint pretrial statement that 

includes issues pertinent to the Indemnity Claims. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: May 15, 2012 MATHENY, SEARS, LINKERT & JAIME LLP 

By: /s/ Richard Linkert 

RICHARD S. LINKERT 

Attorneys for Defendants/Crossclaimants, 

W.M. BEATY & ASSOCIATES, INC. AND 

LANDOWNER DEFENDANTS. 

DATED: May 15, 2012 DOWNEY BRAND LLP 

By: /s/ William R. Warne

WILLIAM R. WARNE 

Attorneys for Defendant/Crossdefendant 

SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES 

Case 2:09-cv-02445-WBS-AC Document 472 Filed 05/22/12 Page 4 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

Error! Unknown document property name.

ORDER 

This matter came before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation to bifurcate trial of Beaty’s 

Indemnity Claims from trial of the Plaintiff’s Claims in the Moonlight Fire Case, as those terms 

are defined in the parties’ Stipulation. For the reasons stated in the Stipulation and good cause 

having been shown, the Court ADOPTS the Stipulation and GRANTS the relief requested as 

follows: 

1. Indemnity will be bifurcated and tried, if necessary, after the liability and/or 

damages phase(s) of the Moonlight Fire Case has/have been completed; 

2. Beaty and Sierra Pacific all retain their rights to a trial by jury of the Indemnity 

Claims, if a trial is necessary; 

3. The issues pertaining to the Indemnity Claims that would otherwise need to be 

included in the joint pretrial statement that is due to be filed in the Moonlight Fire Case on May 

31, 2012, need not be briefed at this time; briefing of these issues shall be deferred until after trial 

of the Plaintiff’s Claims concludes and it is determined whether trial of the Indemnity Claims will 

be required, or until such time as the Court directs. If the resolution of the Plaintiff’s Claims in 

the Moonlight Fire Case does not obviate the need to try the Indemnity Claims, or Beaty and 

Sierra Pacific are not otherwise able to resolve the Indemnity Claims informally, they shall work 

cooperatively together and with the Court to set a date for filing a joint pretrial statement that 

includes issues pertinent to the Indemnity Claims. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 22, 2012. 

Case 2:09-cv-02445-WBS-AC Document 472 Filed 05/22/12 Page 5 of 5