Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00949/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00949-34/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.

 /

The court hereby orders the parties to submit additional

briefing regarding the proposed jury instructions. The court

requests two things. First, for every proposed jury instruction

which cites to the contract, the parties are to provide the court

with a clear citation to the section of the contract and copy of

that section of the contract with the specific section clearly

marked. If it is easier, the parties may jointly submit the

relevant sections of the contract. As best the court can tell,

the following proposed instructions cite to the contract: 

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 647 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 3
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 well established California law that the 1

“interpretation of a written instrument, even though it involves

what might properly be called questions of fact, is essentially a

judicial function to be exercised according to the generally

accepted canons of interpretation so that the purposes of the

instrument may be given effect.” Parsons v. Bristol Development

Co., 62 Cal. 2d 861, 865 (1965). The California Supreme Court

2

TBI’s Instructions: 

Jury Instruction No. 3

Jury Instruction No. 13

Jury Instruction No. 14

Jury Instruction No. 23

Jury Instruction No. 29

EID’s Instructions:

Jury Instruction No. 36

Jury Instruction No. 37

Jury Instruction No. 38

Jury Instruction No. 39

Jury Instruction No. 40

Jury Instruction No. 45

Jury Instruction No. 49

Jury Instruction No. 50

Jury Instruction No. 51

Jury Instruction No. 66

Jury Instruction No. 67

Jury Instruction No. 70 

Second, each party shall file a brief not in excess of 20

pages which addresses these instructions. Specifically, for each

proposed jury instruction which is based on the terms of the

contract, the parties shall explain: (1) whether those terms are

part of the contract or whether the parties dispute the inclusion

of the terms as part of the contract; (2) if the terms are

considered part of the contract, whether the parties dispute the

interpretation of those terms; and (3) if the interpretation of

those terms is in dispute, whether the resolution of the dispute

depends on extrinsic evidence. 

1

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 647 Filed 10/11/06 Page 2 of 3
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

determined that it is “therefor solely a judicial function to

interpret [sic] a written instrument unless the interpretation

turns upon the credibility of extrinsic evidence.” Id. See also

Sunniland Fruit, Inc. v. Verni, 233 Cal. App. 3d. 892, 898 (Cal.

App. 5 Dist. 1991)(“[W]hen the meaning of a contract is uncertain,

and contradictory evidence is introduced to aid in the

interpretation, the question of meaning is one of fact properly

assigned to the fact finder.”) 

3

The additional briefing shall be filed with the court no later

than Wednesday, October 18, 2006 by 5 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 11, 2006.

 

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 647 Filed 10/11/06 Page 3 of 3