Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02622/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02622-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MUSHROOM EXPRESS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv2622 JM(NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

v. CLARIFICATION

PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., LP,

Defendant.

_______________________________

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.

Defendant and Counter-Claimant Penske Truck Leasing Co., LP (“Penske”)

moves to clarify the court’s January 7, 2015 Order granting in part and denying in part

Penske’s motion for summary judgment (“Order”). Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant

Mushroom Express, Inc. (“Mushroom”) opposes the motion. 

The court treats Penske’s motion for clarification as one for reconsideration. 

Reconsideration is generally appropriate “if the district court (1) is presented with

newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. . . . There

may also be other, highly unusual circumstances warranting reconsideration." School

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9 Cir. th

1993) (citations omitted). As Penske fails to identify any newly discovered evidence,

clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law, the court deniesthe motion for

- 1 - 13cv2622

Case 3:13-cv-02622-JM-BLM Document 30 Filed 04/22/15 Page 1 of 2
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

reconsideration.

With respect to Sections 16 and 18 of the Vehicle Lease Service Agreement

(“Agreement”), Penske sought partialsummary judgment based upon these provisions.

These provisions are clear that: (1) Mushroom Express would assume the

risk of loss or damage to any cargo during transit, and (2) that Mushroom

Express could not recover lost profits, damages attributable to a delay

with delivery, or any indirect, special or consequential damages.

(Ct. Dkt. 21-1, Motion at p.19:8-11). In its Order, the court concluded that Penske has

no liability for loss or damage to the cargo or loss of profits caused by the delay. 

Mushroom has a very limited damages remedy under the Agreement. The Order

concluded that genuine issues of material fact prevented entry of summary judgment

on two limited breach of contract claims arising out of Penske’s specific contract

representations that it would (1) maintain the truck in good operating condition and (2)

replace the disabled vehicle with a working similar vehicle within a reasonable period

of time. (Order at pp. 5:15-7:26). While these claims survived summary judgment, the

amount of available damages for these two claims is limited, but not eliminated, by

Sections 16 and 18 of the Agreement (i.e. Mushroom’s damages do not include

damages to the cargo or lost profits). 

In sum, the motion for reconsideration is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 22, 2015

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

- 2 - 13cv2622

Case 3:13-cv-02622-JM-BLM Document 30 Filed 04/22/15 Page 2 of 2