Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01020/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01020-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF

AMERICA, a Washington

corporation; FIRST NATIONAL

INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,

a Washington corporation; and

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF

AMERICA, a Washington

corporation, 

NO. CIV. S-02-1020 WBS PAN

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RE: MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM

JUDGMENT

CORPORATE CONTROL, INC., a

California corporation; HIVOLTAGE WIRE WORKS dba POWER

PROVIDERS, a California

corporation; UNITED UTILITIES,

INC., a California

corporation; SUPPLY SOURCE,

INC. dba EXTRA EQUIPMENT, a

California corporation; TRADE

TECH. INC., a California

corporation; STEVE K. ZINNEL,

an individual; MICHELLE

ZINNEL, an individual; ZINNEL

FAMILY TRUST DATED DECEMBER

14, 1998 through its trustee,

STEVE K. ZINNEL; and DOES 1

through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo---- 

Case 2:02-cv-01020-WBS-PAN Document 524 Filed 06/28/05 Page 1 of 10
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

Defendant Steve K. Zinnel moves this court for relief

from a judgment plaintiffs obtained against him in this action on

the ground that the judgment has allegedly been substantially

satisfied by Swinerton Walberg Co. (“Swinerton”), a nonparty. 

The court experiences something akin to déjà vu as it realizes

that this is the third time within the history of this case that

Mr. Zinnel has argued that he is entitled to offset any judgment

against him with payments on a contract balance plaintiffs

allegedly received from Swinerton. (See June 23, 2004 Reissued

Mem. & Order Re: Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (“June 23, 2004 Reissued

Mem. & Order”) at 36 n.24; August 26, 2004 Mem. & Order Re: Mot.

for Reconsideration (Pls.’ Claims) at 20)(addressing same

argument). This latest reincarnation of Mr. Zinnel’s argument is

no more persuasive the third time around. 

I. Factual and Procedural History

On or about May 10, 2002, plaintiffs filed an action

against Mr. Zinnel and his codefendants (collectively

“defendants”), alleging claims for (1) breach of contract; (2)

exoneration/quia timet; (3) injunctive relief; (4) specific

performance; (5) statutory indemnity; and (6) equitable

subrogation. Thereafter, on April 12, 2004, plaintiffs filed a

motion for summary judgment against all defendants seeking, among

other things, $2,799,642.51 in contract damages from defendants. 

(See June 23, 2004 Reissued Mem. & Order at 36 n.24). Because

genuine issues of material fact remained as to defendants’

liability for some of the requested damages, the court found

defendants jointly and severally liable for only $1,192,509.28 in

contract damages at the summary judgment stage, though additional

Case 2:02-cv-01020-WBS-PAN Document 524 Filed 06/28/05 Page 2 of 10
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

relief was granted on a separate claim. (See id. at 36-37). 

Some of the contract damages for which the court found

defendants liable were a result of losses plaintiff General

Insurance Company of America (“General Insurance”) incurred from

issuing performance and payment bonds on behalf of defendant HiVoltage Wire Works dba Power Providers (“Power Providers”). (See

id. at 7). Before issuing these bonds, plaintiffs had entered

into an agreement with defendants whereby defendants agreed to

indemnify plaintiffs for any losses incurred from issuing the

bonds. (June 23, 2004 Reissued Mem. & Order at 2-4). These

bonds related to a contract Power Providers had entered into with

Swinerton to perform electrical work on the Embassy Suites Hotel

in Sacramento, California (“Embassy Suites Project”). (Id. at 7). 

In a declaration submitted in opposition to plaintiffs’

motion for summary judgment, Mr. Zinnel stated that “[a]s of

November 28, 2001[,] Power Providers had been paid $962,656.20 by

Swinerton on the Embassy Suites Hotel project and the contract

had an unpaid balance of $1,180,244.80.” (Zinnel Decl. in Supp.

of Zinnel’s Opp. to Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. ¶ 17)(capitalization

omitted). However, after Swinerton allegedly failed to pay Power

Providers for some other work on the Embassy Suites Project,

Power Providers stopped work on the project on or about December

26, 2001. (See id. ¶¶ 23-24). General Insurance then took over

and completed the project as it was authorized to do by contract

and incurred $1,915,478.05 in losses from the bond. (See June

23, 2004 Reissued Mem. & Order at 7, 30). Defendants’ refusal to

honor their agreement to indemnify plaintiffs for those losses

led plaintiffs, in part, to file their motion for summary

Case 2:02-cv-01020-WBS-PAN Document 524 Filed 06/28/05 Page 3 of 10
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

judgment.

In opposing that motion, Mr. Zinnel referenced the

aforementioned $1,180,244.80 balance on the contract between

Swinerton and Power Providers for work on the Embassy Suites

Project and some additional outstanding balances on other

contracts. He stated that plaintiffs “provide[d] no credit for

the $1,301,083.68 cumulative balance uncollected on the

contracts” and produced a schedule summarizing this information. 

(See Zinnel Decl. in Supp. of Zinnel’s Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for

Summ. J. ¶ 70, Ex. 26 ). However, because Mr. Zinnel failed to

explain how this balance affected or offset plaintiffs’ specific

claims, the court found this evidence unpersuasive. (See June

23, 2004 Reissued Mem. & Order at 36 n.24; see also August 26,

2004 Mem. & Order Re: Mot. for Reconsideration (Pls.’ Claims) at

20(explaining court’s reasoning in more detail)). 

The court then went on to determine that defendants

were jointly and severally liable to plaintiffs for $406,884.81

in losses plaintiffs incurred from issuing the bonds on the

Embassy Suites Project. (See June 23, 2004 Reissued Mem. & Order

at 29-32, 32 n.18). However, the court refused to find

defendants liable, at the summary judgment stage, for the

remainder of the $1,915,478.05 in losses plaintiffs claimed on

the same bonds because there were genuine issues of material fact

as to whether those particular losses were incurred in good

faith. (See id. at 31-32, 32 n.18). The remainder of the

$1,192,509.28 in contract damages for which the court found

Case 2:02-cv-01020-WBS-PAN Document 524 Filed 06/28/05 Page 4 of 10
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 See id. at 25, 28, 33(noting respective losses of

$120,846.74, $38,000, $58,288.64, $560,989.09, and $7,500 on

other bonds issued for work on other projects). 

5

defendants liable arose from bond losses on other projects.1 

 On or about July 16, 2004, Mr. Zinnel filed a motion

for reconsideration of the summary judgment order. In his

memorandum of points and authorities in support of that motion,

Mr. Zinnel again argued that the alleged uncollected balances

from various projects should offset the judgment by

$1,301,083.68. (See Zinnel’s Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot.

for Reconsideration of Summ. J. at 8). That $1,301,083.68 again

included $1,180,244.80 allegedly owed on the Embassy Suites

Project. (See id.). 

The court denied Mr. Zinnel’s motion for

reconsideration on August 26, 2004. In doing so, the court noted

that it had considered the information contained in Mr. Zinnel’s

schedule. However, the court determined that the information in

the schedule failed to create a genuine issue of material fact

because Mr. Zinnel had not presented any evidence indicating that

the amounts listed on the schedule should offset specific claims

paid by plaintiffs on the relevant bonds. (See August 26, 2004

Mem. & Order Re: Mot. for Reconsideration (Pls.’ Claims) at 20). 

On October 26, 2004, the court entered a final judgment

that disposed of all claims to all parties. (See October 26,

2004 Judgment). Mr. Zinnel appealed the October 26, 2004

judgment on or about November 23, 2004. (See Def. Zinnel’s Index

of Attached Exs. in Supp. of Steve K. Zinnel’s Mot. for Relief

from J. & Mot. for Stay of Execution of J., Ex. 3 (Def. & CrossCase 2:02-cv-01020-WBS-PAN Document 524 Filed 06/28/05 Page 5 of 10
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 Mr. Zinnel also objects to plaintiffs’ oppositions and

certificates of service on the ground that they were not properly

served. (See Steve K. Zinnel’s Objection to Pls.’ Certificates

of Service & Opp’ns at 1,4). He contends that, contrary to the

statements in plaintiffs’ certificates of service, he was never

personally served with the relevant documents on June 13, 2005,

but rather that he found them on the front porch of his personal

residence on June 14, 2005. (Zinnel Decl. in Supp. of Objections

¶¶ 5,7). 

Mr. Zinnel’s objection is unavailing. Local Rule 5-135

allows pros se litigants, like Mr. Zinnel to be “conventionally

served.” “Conventional service” is defined as service

“accomplished by traditional means (either personal or mailing)

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(A)-(C). . . .” Local Rule 1-

101. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(B) allows for

service by mail and states that such service is complete on

mailing. Mailing can be accomplished by messenger service. See

6

Def. Steve K. Zinnel’s Notice of Appeal)). 

Thereafter, Mr. Zinnel reviewed the billings and

payments Power Providers received on the Embassy Suites project

again. Based on this review, Mr. Zinnel declares that he

prepared a schedule titled “Balance to collect on contract

schedule as of July 2002.” In that schedule, Mr. Zinnel

represents that Swinerton paid Power Providers $962,656 on a

$2,142,901 contract leaving a balance of $1,180,245 on the

contract. Mr. Zinnel then states that “[his] research leads

[him] to believe that plaintiffs have collectively collected

$1,180,245.” (Zinnel Decl. ¶ 4; Zinnel’s Index, Ex. 11 (Contract

Schedule)). Based on the schedule he prepared and the inferences

he draws from that schedule, Mr. Zinnel now files this motion for

relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b)(5). If that relief is denied, Mr. Zinnel moves the court,

on unspecified grounds, to order plaintiffs to provide copies of

payments he believes they received from Swinerton on the Embassy

Suites project.2

Case 2:02-cv-01020-WBS-PAN Document 524 Filed 06/28/05 Page 6 of 10
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

In re: William B. Kessler, Inc., 29 B.R. 358 (S.D.N.Y. Bankr.

1983)(finding delivery by messenger service to be proper). 

Mr. Zinnel does not challenge the sworn statements in both

of plaintiffs’ certificates of service to the effect that the

documents were placed in a properly addressed envelope and served

on him by messenger service on June 13, 2005. (See Pls.’ June

13, 2005 Certificate of Service at 2-3; Pls.’ June 14, 2005 Am.

Certificate of Service at 2-3). Nor does he deny that he

received the relevant documents. Instead, he freely admits he

found them on his porch on June 14, 2005. (Zinnel Decl. in Supp.

of Objections ¶ 5). Therefore, Mr. Zinnel’s objections to

service are overruled.

7

II. Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) provides that

“the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment . . .

[if] the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged . .

. .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). Relief under Rule 60(b) is,

however, considered extraordinary and granted only in exceptional

circumstances. Sellers v. Mineta, 350 F.3d 706, 716 (8th Cir.

2003). A party seeking relief from a final judgment based on

satisfaction of the judgment bears the burden of proving that the

judgment has been satisfied. Tungseth v. Mutual of Omaha Ins.

Co., 43 F.3d 406, 409 (8th Cir. 1994). A party may not seek

relief from judgment simply to relitigate matters settled by the

original judgment. Donovan v. Sovereign Sec., Ltd., 726 F.2d 55,

60 (2d Cir. 1984).

 Mr. Zinnel has failed to provide the court with any

evidence to establish that plaintiffs’ judgment has been

satisfied other than the schedule of payments he created after

reviewing billings and payments Power Providers received from

Swinerton. This evidence is not enough to meet Mr. Zinnel’s

burden on this motion. 

Case 2:02-cv-01020-WBS-PAN Document 524 Filed 06/28/05 Page 7 of 10
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

8

At best, Mr. Zinnel’s evidence suggests that Swinerton

owed Power Providers (one of Mr. Zinnel’s codefendants)

$1,180,245 on a contract for work on the Embassy Suites Project. 

This suggestion is itself dubious because Power Providers ceased

work on the project such that General Insurance was obliged to

take over the project. (See Reissued Mem. & Order at 7, 30). 

But whatever inference Mr. Zinnel’s evidence raises as

to whether Swinerton owed Power Providers under the contract, it

does not establish that plaintiffs collected $1,180,245 from

Swinerton. Mr. Zinnel’s declaration that “[his] research leads

him to believe that plaintiffs have collectively collected [the]

$1,180,245" is unavailing. (Zinnel Decl. ¶ 4). The only

research Mr. Zinnel cites to support this belief is his review of

the billings and payments Power Providers received from

Swinerton. (See Zinnel’s Index, Ex. 11 (Contract Schedule)). As

explained in two previous orders, the fact that Swinerton may

have owed Power Providers money does not establish that

plaintiffs recovered that money or that their judgment against

Mr. Zinnel was somehow satisfied. (See June 23, 2004 Reissued

Mem. & Order at 36 n.24; Mem. & Order Re: Mot. for

Reconsideration (Pls.’ Claims) at 20). A Rule 60(b) motion is

not meant to be an opportunity for Mr. Zinnel to make a twicerejected argument for a third time to the same court in yet

another effort to relitigate the same matter. See Donovan, 726

F.2d at 60. Because Mr. Zinnel has once again failed to

demonstrate that plaintiffs’ judgment has been satisfied, his

request for relief under Rule 60(b)(5) must be denied. See

Tungseth, 43 F.3d at 409.

Case 2:02-cv-01020-WBS-PAN Document 524 Filed 06/28/05 Page 8 of 10
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

9

Mr. Zinnel cites no authority, other than “equity and

fairness,” for his alternative request for a court order

compelling plaintiffs to produce documentation of payments

received from Swinerton for work on the Embassy Suites Project. 

(See Def. Steve Zinnel’s Reply to Pls.’ Opp’n at 8). Equity and

fairness are not in Mr. Zinnel’s favor. Rather, both would be

offended by rewarding Mr. Zinnel’s needless relitigation of this

issue with an order compelling plaintiffs to produce documents so

that Mr. Zinnel could relitigate the matter again for a fourth

time. Furthermore, plaintiffs contend that they have not found

any legal authority for compelling them to produce these

documents postjudgment. (See Pls.' Opp. to Def. Steve K.

Zinnel's Mot. for Relief from J. at 5). Nor has the court found

any such authority. Because equity disfavors this request and

because the court has no apparent legal authority to grant it,

this request is also denied.

If Mr. Zinnel continues to disagree with this court’s

judgment, his remedy is to appeal to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, not to continue to seek

reconsideration of the judgment in this court. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Steve K.

Zinnel's motions for relief from judgment and for a court order

compelling plaintiffs to produce documentation of payments 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-01020-WBS-PAN Document 524 Filed 06/28/05 Page 9 of 10
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

10

received from Swinerton be, and the same hereby are, DENIED. 

DATED: June 27, 2005

Case 2:02-cv-01020-WBS-PAN Document 524 Filed 06/28/05 Page 10 of 10