Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00018/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00018-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

1

13-CV-18 JLS (DHB)

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

350 WEST ASH URBAN HOME, INC., a 

California corporation; 350 W.A. LLC, a 

California limited liability company; 

B&H PROPERTY SYSTEMS, INC., a 

California corporation; and DAVID A. 

BLACKBURN, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EVEREST INDEMNITY INSURANCE 

COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; 

THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE 

STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, a 

qualified Pennsylvania corporation; and 

DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 13-CV-18 JLS (DHB)

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(ECF Nos. 83, 84, 85, 94, 95)

Presently before the Court are Defendant Everest Indemnity Insurance Company’s 

Motions in Limine to Exclude: (1) All Evidence Relating to “Opportunity Cost” Damages 

(ECF No. 83); All Evidence Relating to “Highlighted Invoices” (ECF No. 84); and (3) All 

Damages, Documents, and Witnesses Not Properly Disclosed (ECF No. 85) (collectively, 

Defendant’s MILs), as well as Plaintiffs 350 West Ash Urban Home, Inc.; 350 W.A. LLC; 

B&H Property Systems, Inc.; and David A. Blackburn’s Motions in Limine to Exclude:

Case 3:13-cv-00018-JLS-JLB Document 110 Filed 06/27/16 Page 1 of 4
2

13-CV-18 JLS (DHB)

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) Reference to Unrelated Litigation (ECF No. 94), and (2) Everest’s Belatedly Proffered 

Excuses for Denying Plaintiffs’ Claim and Everest’s Own Bad Faith (ECF No. 95) 

(collectively, Plaintiffs’ MILs). Also before the Court are Defendants’ Oppositions to 

Plaintiffs’ MILs (ECF Nos. 99, 102, respectively), Plaintiffs’ Oppositions to Defendants’ 

MILs (ECF Nos. 97, 98, 100, respectively), Defendants’ Replies in Support of Defendant’s 

MILs (ECF Nos. 103, 104, 105, respectively), Plaintiffs’ Replies in Support of Plaintiffs’ 

MILs (ECF Nos. 106, 107, respectively), and Plaintiffs’ supporting exhibits (ECF Nos. 96, 

108). A hearing was held on June 23, 2016. Having considered the parties’ arguments and 

the law, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s first MIL (ECF No. 84), DENIES Defendants’ 

second MIL (ECF No. 85), DENIES Defendant’s third MIL (ECF No. 85), GRANTS

Plaintiffs’ first MIL (ECF No. 95), and DENIES Plaintiffs’ second MIL (ECF No. 96),

although the Court reiterates that these rulings may be revisited during the trial for good 

cause.

In its first MIL, Defendant asks the Court to exclude all evidence and testimony as 

to Plaintiff Blackburn’s lost opportunity cost damages. (See generally ECF No. 83.) 

Plaintiffs counter that they are seeking only prejudgment interest, which the Court may—

in its discretion—award at a rate higher than 10%. (See Pls.’ 1st Opp’n 5–7, ECF No. 97.) 

Under the plain language of California Civil Code § 3289, however, the Court finds that it 

is not able to award prejudgment interest at a rate higher than 10% per year. See Cal. Civ. 

Code § 3289(b) (“If a contract entered into after January 1, 1986, does not stipulate a legal 

rate of interest, the obligation shall bear interest at a rate of 10 percent per annum after a 

breach.”); see also Cal. Const. art. XV, § 1 (“The rate of interest upon a judgment rendered 

in any court of this state shall be set by the Legislature at not more than 10 percent per 

annum.”). The cases Plaintiffs cite do not compel a different conclusion. Consequently, 

Plaintiffs may not seek prejudgment interest greater than 10% per year. To the extent 

Plaintiffs are, as Defendant argues, seeking damages other than prejudgment interest and 

akin to lost opportunity costs, those damages were not properly disclosed to Defendant 

under Rule 26. Because this failure to disclose was not substantially justified or harmless, 

Case 3:13-cv-00018-JLS-JLB Document 110 Filed 06/27/16 Page 2 of 4
3

13-CV-18 JLS (DHB)

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

it mandates exclusion under Rule 37. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s first 

motion in limine (ECF No. 83), thereby precluding Plaintiffs from offering any evidence 

or argument regarding lost opportunity costs.

Defendant’s second motion in limine asks the Court to exclude all evidence or 

testimony relating to the “highlighted entries” on the Wayne Thomas & Associates 

invoices. (See generally ECF No. 84.) It appears to the Court that mistakes were made on 

both sides: although Plaintiff Blackburn’s specious invocation of the attorney-client 

privilege deprived Defendant of a fair opportunity to conduct discovery, the Court also 

questions whether Plaintiff Blackburn was the proper party to depose. The Court therefore 

DENIES Defendant’s second motion in limine (ECF No. 84), but REOPENS 

DISCOVERY to August 1, 2016 as to the reasons any particular billing entries were 

highlighted.

In its third motion in limine, Defendant broadly requests exclusion of all damages, 

documents, and witnesses not properly disclosed. (See generally ECF No. 85.) 

Specifically, Defendant requests that the Court preclude evidence of opportunity cost 

damages “or any other non-disclosed damages” (id. at 12), as well as “any exhibits not 

properly disclosed and/or exchanged” (id. at 15). To the extent this motion is not 

duplicative of Defendant’s first motion in limine, the Court DENIES Defendant’s third 

motion in limine. (ECF No. 85.) Objections to “any other non-disclosed damages” or “any 

exhibits not properly disclosed and/or exchanged” are far too broad, see, e.g., Actuate Corp. 

v. Aon Corp., No. C 10-05750 WHA, 2012 WL 2285187, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2012), 

and may therefore be renewed at trial on an item-by-item basis. 

Plaintiffs’ first motion in limine seeks exclusion of all evidence of the Hoko, Helleis, 

and Century Actions. (See generally ECF No. 94.) Because the Court concludes that these 

actions are irrelevant to the issues in the current action—and because Defendant did not 

object to the Court’s tentative to that effect—the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ first motion 

in limine. (ECF No. 94.) Accordingly, Defendants are precluded from introducing

evidence or testimony regarding these three lawsuits at trial.

Case 3:13-cv-00018-JLS-JLB Document 110 Filed 06/27/16 Page 3 of 4
4

13-CV-18 JLS (DHB)

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 their second motion in limine, Plaintiffs ask the Court to exclude all evidence 

related to Defendant’s denial of Plaintiffs’ claim and in support of Defendant’s claim that 

it did not commit bad faith. (See generally ECF No. 95.) Because this motion in 

impermissibly broad, see Actuate Corp., 2012 WL 2285187, at *4, the Court DENIES

Plaintiffs’ second motion in limine (ECF No. 95). Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their 

objections to specific evidence at trial.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s first MIL (ECF No. 84), 

DENIES Defendants’ second MIL (ECF No. 85), DENIES Defendant’s third MIL (ECF 

No. 85), GRANTS Plaintiffs’ first MIL (ECF No. 95), and DENIES Plaintiffs’ second 

MIL (ECF No. 96). The Court HEREBY REOPENS DISCOVERY to August 1, 2016

as to the highlighted invoices. Any disputes are to be directed to Magistrate Judge Jill L. 

Burkhardt. Additionally, the Court HEREBY DIRECTS the parties to contact Magistrate 

Judge Burkhardt, or a private mediator of their choosing, to further explore alternative 

resolution of this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2016

Case 3:13-cv-00018-JLS-JLB Document 110 Filed 06/27/16 Page 4 of 4