Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03435/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03435-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH,

PENNSYLVANIA, a corporation, and

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

COMPANY, a corporation,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ELECTRIC TRANSIT INCORPORATED, an

Ohio corporation and joint venture of SKODA,

a.s., a corporation, SKODA, a.s., SKODA

OSTROV, s.r.o., a corporation, AAI

CORPORATION, a corporation, and CZECH

EXPORT BANK, a corporation,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-03435 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING

AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON FEBRUARY 9, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

Case 3:04-cv-03435-JSW Document 136 Filed 02/08/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court tentatively DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Why should the Court not be persuaded by the New York authority for the proposition

that reliance on federal cases interpreting the Miller Act is misplaced where the Bond at

issue specifically references California Civil Code Section 3247? What specific

California authority interpreting the referenced California Civil Code section stands for

the proposition that “the law in California, like New York, does not prohibit joint

venturers, insiders, indemnitors or alter egos from claiming under a payment bond”? 

(See Opp. Br. at 15.) 

2. If the Court must resolve the issue of whether AAI Corporation functioned as a joint

venture or insider, why is that not a question of disputed material fact properly resolved

by the jury? 

See, e.g.,

• Rossi Declaration, ¶ 12, Ex. 33 at AH 000239 (memo from AAI to AIG

indicating that “[d]istinction must be made between ETI and AAI. The

holder of the MUNI contract is ETI. AAI is a 35% owner of ETI and has

a subcontract from ETI for about $54 million.”);

• Rossi Declaration, ¶ 12, Ex. 36 at 20:18-21:25, 25:16-26:1, Ex. 2 at 65:3-

21, 106:13-108:8, Ex. 60 (testimony and exhibit evidencing officers of

ETI took direction from ETI Board of Directors, not from AAI);

• Rossi Declaration, ¶ 12, Ex. 8 at ¶ 7.14, Ex. 9 at 89:6-23, 91:13-20, 92:6-

19; Ex. 36 at154:8-155:17 (at relevant times, ETI Board of Directors was

controlled by majority shareholder, Skoda);

• Erkeneff Opposition Declaration, ¶ 6 (President of AAI’s impression that

ETI and AAI functioned as separate and distinct corporations; subject to

Defendants’ objections); 

• Rossi Declaration, ¶ 12, Ex. 2 at 53:8-18, 55:4-11 (ETI did not function

as a joint venture between AAI and Skoda with only a single

undertaking).

3. What are the parties’ contentions regarding the significance and possible estoppel effect

of a footnote in an AAI progress report (AIG Exs. 19, 20)? Where in the voluminous

record can this Court locate testimony or evidence to interpret the parties’

contemporaneous understanding of its significance? Is there a dispute of fact regarding

whether the statement that the “cost above contract value will be funded by

shareholders” directly refers to the MUNI project losses or to “the contract framework

agreement”?

4. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03435-JSW Document 136 Filed 02/08/07 Page 2 of 2