Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00949/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00949-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT,

a political subdivision of the

State of California,

NO. CIV. S-03-949 LKK/GGH

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

TRAYLOR BROS., INC., an 

Indiana corporation,

Defendant.

 /

AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIMS.

 /

The El Dorado Irrigation District (“EID”) filed suit against

Traylor Brothers, Inc. (“TBI”) as well as Travelers Casualty and

Surety Company of America (“Travelers”) for breach of contract. TBI

filed a counterclaim. The matter proceeded to trial on September

19, 2006. The jury rendered its verdict on November 30, 2006,

concluding that EID breached its contract with TBI and awarded

$6,264,312.00 in damages. 

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 847 Filed 04/13/07 Page 1 of 14
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

2

Pending before the court are two matters: EID’s renewed rule

50(b) motion that TBI failed to prove certain damages claims and

TBI’s supplemental request for attorneys’ fees. The court

addresses each matter in turn.

I.

EID’s Renewed Rule 50(b) Motion 

On February 9, 2007, the court deferred judgment on EID’s

renewed Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law that TBI

failed to prove certain damages claims. The court requested

further briefing on the matter. TBI filed a supplemental brief to

which EID filed a reply.

A. Standard of Review under Rule 50(b)

A party may renew its motion for judgment as a matter of

law,

[i]f for any reason, the court does not grant a motion

for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of all

the evidence, the court is considered to have submitted

the action to the jury subject to the court's later

deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. The

movant may renew its request for judgment as a matter of

law by filing a motion no later than 10 days after the

entry of judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). A renewed motion for judgment as a matter

of law is proper when the evidence construed in the light most

favorable to the non-moving party permits only one reasonable

conclusion as to the verdict and that conclusion is contrary to the

jury's verdict. See Air-Sea Forwarders, Inc. v. Air Asia Co., 880

F.2d 176, 181 (9th Cir. 1989). The motion should be granted “only

if the verdict is ‘against the great weight of the evidence, or it

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 847 Filed 04/13/07 Page 2 of 14
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

3

is quite clear that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous

result.’” Hangarter v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 373 F.3d

998, 1005 (9th Cir. 2004)(internal citations omitted). See also

Settlegoode v. Portland Public Schools, 371 F.3d 503, 510 (9th Cir.

2004)(Explaining that a “district court may set aside a jury

verdict and grant judgment as a matter of law only if, under the

governing law, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the

verdict.”)

Moreover, “[a] party cannot raise arguments in its post-trial

motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) that it did

not raise in its pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion.” Freund v. Nycomed

Amersham, 347 F.3d 752, 761 (9th Cir. 2003), see also Advisory

Comm. Notes to the 1991 Amendments, Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 (“A post

trial motion for judgment can be granted only on grounds advanced

in the pre-verdict motion.”)

B. The Contested Damages 

EID’s initial Rule 50 motion contested seven of TBI’s eight

claims for damages. Specifically, EID claimed that TBI failed to

offer proof for five of the claims: the consumptive water claim,

the sedimentation pond claim, the outstanding change order

requests, the escalation of labor and power costs, and the extra

environmental costs. EID’s Rule 50 Mot. at 2:2-3. In addition,

EID alleged that TBI could not “prove a causal connection between

all of their claims (other than for unpaid contract balance) and

the damages it allegedly suffered.” Id., at 2:3-5. 

In its Rule 50(b) motion, EID also challenged TBI’s damages

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 847 Filed 04/13/07 Page 3 of 14
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

4

regarding its proof of the unpaid contract balance. EID

specifically did not raise this challenge in its initial Rule 50

motion. Given that EID failed to raise this argument in its

initial Rule 50 motion, EID cannot raise this challenge for the

first time in its Rule 50(b) motion. See Freund v. Nycomed

Amersham, 347 F.3d at 761 (“[a] party cannot raise arguments in its

post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b)

that it did not raise in its pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion.”)

Accordingly, the court addresses only those damages which EID

contested in its initial Rule 50 motion. 

1. Delay Damages After Hole Through 

At trial, TBI sought damages for delays after hole through.

TBI presented substantial evidence to support the jury’s award of

damages. Specifically, the testimony of Mr. Robert Taylor

established that the total costs incurred by TBI for 181 days of

delay was $1,776,935. (TT 3668:18-21). Mr. Taylor explained that

based on a review of TBI's costs, TBI's daily cost of operations

was $9,817 ($1,776,935 divided by 181 days). This included costs

for equipment rental, fuel costs, labor costs and other time

related costs. (TT 3668:18-3669:16). 

TBI also presented the testimony of Mark Johnson. Mr. Johnson

also testified about the delays post-hole through. Mr. Johnson

discussed the following events which delayed TBI’s completion: (1)

stop work order regarding corrections to the misalignment (TT

3497:10-3498:6); (2) diversion wall or bulkhead stop work order (TT

3501:1-3503:4); and (3) sediment pond stop work order (TT

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 847 Filed 04/13/07 Page 4 of 14
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

It is impossible to know the amount the jury awarded for 1

each category of damages. TBI requested that the jury award a

total of $6,578,817, and the jury awarded $6,264,312, which was

$314,505 less than the requested amount. The general verdict form

did not reveal which categories of damages the jury apparently

found lacking in evidence. EID did not object to the jury verdict

form. 

5

3503:5-3504:5). Mr. Johnson opined that EID was responsible for

209 days of delay arising from the diversion wall stop work order.

(TT 3513:12-23; 3530:1-3531:1).

In light of this testimony, there was sufficient evidence for

the jury to determine that TBI suffered damages associated with the

delay after hole through.1

2. Decant Slab Delay Damages

There was sufficient evidence of the decant slab delay to

support the jury’s award of damages. First, the Dispute Review

Board unanimously decided that EID was solely responsible for any

delay caused to TBI as a result of the construction of the Decant

Slab and that such delay was a "Compensable Delay" pursuant to the

Contract. (Trial Exhibit 402, page 7). Second, Mr. Mitter

specifically testified to damages regarding the decant slab. (TT

3010:22 -3011:10; TT 3010:13-14; TT 3015:4-3016:3). Mr. Greg

Cangelosi also testified that trial exibit 309 relfected that the

cost of the decant slab delay was $234,860. (TT 3591:4-12; TT

3591:6-17). Finally, Mr. Taylor testified that TBI had in fact

incurred costs with respect to the decant slab. (TT

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 847 Filed 04/13/07 Page 5 of 14
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

The parties contest whether or not certain exhibits that 2

were never marked into evidence can, nonetheless, be incorporated

as evidence through testimony. Even if the court were to conclude

that these exhibits could not be construed as evidence, there is

still sufficient admitted evidence which supports the jury’s award

of damages. 

Again, the parties contest whether or not the court can 3

consider trial exhibits which were not admitted as evidence. As

with the decant slab, when the court examines just the admitted

evidence, it is clear that TBI submitted sufficient evidence to

support the jury’s verdict. 

6

3687:15-3688:3; TT 3664:15-3665:3). In short, there was 2

sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. 

3. Consumptive Water Line Damages 

TBI also sought damages for delays associated with EID's

request that the consumptive water line design be prepared by a

licensed engineer. Again, there was ample evidence to support the

jury’s damages award. 

John McDonald testified that TBI experienced a 22 to 27-day

delay as a result of EID's request for an engineered plan for the

consumptive water line. (TT 1349:16-21) He also testified that the

cost to TBI for URS' work in redesigning the water line was

approximately $30,000. (TT 1473:16-18) 

Moreover, trial exhibit 309 included a claim for “consumptive

water system delay” in the amount of $340,292. Mr. Taylor

testified that TBI did in fact incur costs associated with the

consumptive water delay. (TT 3662:21-3664:14).3

4. Sedimentation Pond Damages

TBI sought damages for extra work related to cleaning up the

sedimentation pond. Ample evidence was presented to the jury on

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 847 Filed 04/13/07 Page 6 of 14
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

7

this point. Greg Cangelosi testified that TBI developed and

implemented a procedure to clean up the sedimentation pond area

that was eventually accepted by EID and MWH. (TT 3567:23-3575:20)

He explained that TBI tracked its costs associated with the

sedimentation pond area using Time and Materials sheets. The Time

and Materials sheets were then used to create additional spread

sheets for labor, equipment and materials costs. (TT

3575:21-3577:24)

Mr. Cangelosi was also involved in the preparation of Trial

Exhibit 309. (TT 3591:4-12). The "Final Estimate" sheet (page

EID26 03687) in Trial Exhibit 309 represents work that was

completed by TBI. (TT 3593:2-8). According to Exhibit 309, TBI

incurred $177,139.76 in clean up costs for the sedimentation pond.

(TT 3594:1-13). Mr. Taylor also testified that TBI incurred costs

associated with sedimentation pond clean up. (TT 3667:2-14). In

sum, there is ample evidence to support the jury’s damages award.

5. Other Potential Change Orders 

TBI also sought damages for various potential change orders

that were never paid by EID. Substantial evidence was presented

as to these damages as well. 

Mr. Cangelosi testified generally about various work for which

TBI was never paid. (i.e.: TBI installed a tunnel entry protection

grate and a diversion wall.) See TT 3586:10-3590:22; TT

3596:5-3598:7. According to Trial Exhibit 309, the "Final

Estimate" (EID26 03687) includes a section for "Potential Change

Orders" that includes a series of items that total $235,902.91.

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 847 Filed 04/13/07 Page 7 of 14
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

8

Subtracting the amount for the sedimentation pond clean up

($177,139.76) which has already been addressed, the remainder

totals $58,763.15. It appears that there was ample evidence for

the jury to award damages on these grounds. 

6. Escalation of Labor and Power Costs 

TBI sought damages for the escalation of labor and power costs

associated with the delay in the project. Trial exhibit 309 makes

multiple mention of the damages related to the escalation of labor

and power. For example, the cover letter to TBI's Final

Application for Payment references TBI's claim for, among other

things, "escalations." (EID26 03679) and the "Pay Summary"

indicates a claim for $254,281 for "Escalation of Salaries and

Power." (EID26 03682).

Mr. Taylor also testified that he reviewed TBI's claim for

escalation of labor and power costs to determine if these were

actual costs incurred by TBI. (TT 3669:18-3670:2) The review was

to see if there was a difference in labor costs and utility power

surcharges due to the passage of time while the project was

delayed. Mr. Taylor testified that TBI did in fact incur labor and

power costs associated with the delay. 

7. Extra Environmental Costs 

Lastly, TBI sought damages for extra environmental costs

associated with work performed by Mr. John McDonald. Mr. McDonald

testified that EID agreed to pay certain costs for Mr. McDonald to

take over an environmental consultant position and then refused to

pay these costs. (TT 1252:2-1253:19, 1431:8-1432:4; 1434:3-18;

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 847 Filed 04/13/07 Page 8 of 14
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

TBI and Travelers originally sought $230,233.82, but 4

defendants reduced this amount based on errors in their

9

1435:20-1436:16). He testified that the position of environmental

safety officer was not in the original contract. (TT

1434:19-1435:4) Mr. McDonald performed the work of an

environmental safety officer for approximately 10% of his time from

January through August 2002. (TT 1481:5-11; 1491:13-1492:14.) Mr.

McDonald compiled his costs for this work and gave it to EID’s

construction manager. (TT 1437:3-11).

Mr. Taylor testified that he reviewed detailed records on

material costs, subcontract costs, labor charges and equipment

usage for the project. Mr. Taylor also reviewed back up and

supporting information and contracts. (TT 3649:4-23) Mr.

McDonald’s work was included in the costs incurred calculation. (TT

3675:4-9; 3674:5-3675:3). 

In sum, TBI presented ample evidence to support the jury’s

damages award. It cannot be said that when the evidence is

construed in the light most favorable to TBI, it permits only one

reasonable conclusion that is contrary to the jury's verdict. See

Air-Sea Forwarders, Inc. v. Air Asia Co., 880 F.2d 176, 181 (9th

Cir. 1989). Accordingly, EID’s Rule 50(b) Motion with respect to

damages is DENIED.

II.

TBI’s Supplemental Motion for Attorneys Fees 

TBI and Travelers seek an additional $228,531.00 in attorneys'

fees for work related to the parties' post-trial motions. EID 4

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 847 Filed 04/13/07 Page 9 of 14
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

calculations. See Def.’s Reply to Plt.’s Oppo. pp. 9-10.

 The court incorporates by reference the section on 5

applicable law in its February 12 Order. See Feb. 12, 2007 Order

5-6.

10

contends that the present motion should be denied in full due to

its overreaching nature. Alternatively, EID requests that the

court reduce the amount requested by $111,434.32. EID objects to

various requests on the grounds that the fees are neither

reasonable nor necessary. The court addresses each of EID's

objections in turn.5

A. EID’s Objections TO TBI’s Requests for Attorneys’ Fees

1. Fees for Work Completed by Steven Owen

EID argues that TBI is not entitled to any attorneys’ fees

incurred by Mr. Steven Owen, TBI’s in-house counsel. EID basis its

argument on the court’s previous ruling that TBI could not recover

for the hours Mr. Owens worked as a client representative. Feb.

12, 2007 Order 12:9-14. Accordingly, EID asks that the court

reduce TBI’s award by $27,720 (79.2 hours at a rate of $350/hr).

The court agrees the TBI is not entitled to recovery for those

hours Mr. Owens worked as a client representative. Although TBI

claims that all of Mr. Owen’s post-trial hours constitute legal

work, simply labeling the work as “legal” is insufficient. That

said, Mr. Owen did submit an affidavit that set forth the various

legal tasks he undertook. Accordingly, the court deducts

$13,860.00 (this is half of the amount requested for Mr. Owen) from

TBI’s total award of attorneys’ fees. 

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 847 Filed 04/13/07 Page 10 of 14
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

11

2. Fees Related to EID’s Rule 50(b) Motion 

EID objects to TBI recovering fees for any labor spent on

TBI’s supplemental brief regarding EID’s rule 50(b) motion. EID

claims that TBI failed to diligently prepare its original brief,

and, as such, should not recover for time spent on the supplemental

brief.

Given that the court specifically requested that TBI file a

supplemental brief, it seems reasonable to award attorneys’ fees

for the additional work. Accordingly, the court will disregard

EID’s objection. 

3. Fees for Preparing Motions for Attorneys’ Fees

EID argues that TBI spent an exorbitant amount of time

preparing the motions for attorneys’ fees. TBI spent a total of

227.5 hours preparing the attorneys’ fees motions. Of those, 206.6

hours were for attorney time. The court is inclined to agree that

collecting attorneys’ fees for these hours is excessive. (As one

example, Ms. Ljungdahl apparently spend 55.8 hours researching

market rates for attorney fees in Sacramento and San Francisco.)

EID asks that the court reduce the award by $28,878.50. This

amount represents a portion of the time that TBI spent preparing

the motions for attorneys fees. The court agrees and the total

award amount will be reduced accordingly. 

4. Fees for the Unsuccessful Prejudgment Interest

Motion

EID argues TBI should not receive fees for preparing its

unsuccessful motion for prejudgement interest. The court

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 847 Filed 04/13/07 Page 11 of 14
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

12

disagrees. A prevailing party is entitled to compensation for all

hours reasonably spent on the litigation. Serrano v. Unruh, 32 Cal.

3d 621, 639 (1982). Moreover, recovery does not hinge upon the

success or failure of a particular motion. See, e.g., Monroe v.

United Air Lines, Inc., 565 F. Supp. 274, 286 (N.D. Ill. 1983)

(party entitled to recover fees for unsuccessful motion for a

preliminary injunction where motion was based on identical facts

and legal theories that underpinned their ultimate success on the

merits). Therefore, TBI may recover for its time spent working on

the prejudgment interest motion. For this reason, the court will

not deduct any attorneys’ fees related to work on that motion.

5. Fees Related to Appellate Work

EID argues that TBI cannot recover attorneys’ fees for work

completed by the firm Heller Ehrman because TBI retained the firm

after judgment was entered, in part to preserve issues for appeal.

EID asks the court to reduce TBI’s award by $12,123.82.

Although TBI retained Heller Ehrman after judgment was

entered, the record shows that the firm spent a reasonable amount

of time researching EID’s Rule 50(b) motion, which is one of the

post-trial motions for which TBI seeks recovery of attorneys’ fees.

See Supp. Decl. of Leanord J. Feldman in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. for

Award of Att’ys’ Fees. The work does not appear to be appellate in

nature. As such, the court will not deduct from the attorneys’

fees award for work completed by Heller Ehrman.

////

6. Miscellaneous Work

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 847 Filed 04/13/07 Page 12 of 14
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

13

EID asserts that numerous tasks for which TBI billed should

not be included in the award of attorneys’ fees. The court agrees

TBI should not recover attorneys’ fees related to the following

tasks: (1) completing media-related work ($655.50); (2) updating

box-indexes ($2,681.00); (3) taking depositions for an unrelated

matter ($576.00); (4) creating settlement and appeal strategies

($1,380.00); (5) working on strategies related to

trial/verdict/juror comments ($355.00); and (6) preparing documents

for offsite storage ($99.00). Accordingly, the court reduces the

award in the amount of $5,746.50.

B. Final Calculation of Attorneys’ Fees Award 

For the reasons explained above, the following amount is

awarded as attorneys’ fees:

Amount Requested: $228,531.00

Deductions: $13,860.00 Work completed by Mr. Owens.

$28,878.50 Inefficiency in preparing

motions for attorneys fees.

$5,746.50 Miscellaneous.

Final Award: = $180,046.00

III.

Conclusion 

For the reasons discussed herein, the court orders as follows:

1. EID’s Rule 50(b) Motion regarding TBI’s damages is DENIED.

2. TBI’s Supplemental Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED

in the amount of $180,046.00. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 847 Filed 04/13/07 Page 13 of 14
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

14

DATED: April 12, 2007. 

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 847 Filed 04/13/07 Page 14 of 14