Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00583/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00583-51/pdf.json

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

---

600282268v1 1

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

STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND [PROP.] ORDER THEREON , 

Case No. 2:05-CV-0583-LKK/GGH

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 

ARLEN ORCHARD (State Bar No. 143015) 

STEVEN M. COHN (State Bar No. 88565) 

6201 “S” Street 

Sacramento, CA 95817 

Telephone: (916) 732-5847 

Facsimile: (916) 732-6581 

BRIGHT AND BROWN 

JAMES S. BRIGHT (State Bar No. 65299) 

MAUREEN J. BRIGHT (State Bar No. 81589) 

BRIAN L. BECKER (State Bar No. 115431) 

SHARON M. APODACA (State Bar No. 213798) 

550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 2100 

Glendale, CA 91203 

Telephone: (818) 243-2121 

Facsimile: (818) 243-3225 

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

PHILIP S. WARDEN (State Bar No. 54752) 

JOHN S. POULOS (State Bar No. 154689) 

CHRISTOPHER R. RODRIGUEZ (State Bar No. 212274) 

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700 

Sacramento, California 95814-4419 

Telephone: (916) 329-4700 

Facsimile: (916) 441-3583 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT 

DIEPENBROCK HARRISON 

EILEEN M. DIEPENBROCK (State Bar No. 119254) 

JENNIFER L. McCREADY (State Bar No. 179262) 

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1800 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 492-5000 

Facsimile: (916) 446-4535 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant 

FRU-CON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and 

Counterdefendant A. TEICHERT & SON, INC. 

MOORE & LEE, LLP 

ROBERT M. MOORE 

CHARLIE C.H. LEE 

ROBERT D. WINDUS 

1750 Tysons Blvd., Suite 1450 

McLean, Virginia 22102 

Telephone: (703) 506-2050 

Facsimile: (703) 506-2051 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants 

FRU-CON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and 

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA and 

Counterdefendant A. TEICHERT & SON, INC. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-00583-LKK -GGH Document 396 Filed 04/25/07 Page 1 of 5
600282268v1 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

STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND [PROP.] ORDER THEREON , 

Case No. 2:05-CV-0583-LKK/GGH

WATT, TIEDER, HOFFAR & FITZGERALD, L.L.P. 

ROBERT C. NIESLEY (State Bar No. 131373) 

BENNETT J. LEE (State Bar No. 230482) 

MICHAEL R. GANDEE (State Bar No. 167032) 

Citigroup Center 

One Sansome Street, Suite 1050 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 623-7000 

Facsimile: (415) 623-7001 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants 

FRU-CON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and 

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

FRU-CON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, 

a Missouri corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY 

DISTRICT, a municipal utility district; UTILITY 

ENGINEERING CORPORATION, a Texas 

corporation, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:05-CV-0583-LKK/GGH 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH 

PREJUDICE CERTAIN CLAIMS AND TO 

WITHDRAW SANCTIONS MOTIONS; 

ORDER THEREON 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM. 

Plaintiff and counterdefendant Fru-Con Construction Corporation (“Fru-Con”), 

counterdefendant A. Teichert & Son, Inc. (“Teichert”), and defendant and counterclaimant 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District (the “District”), collectively referred to herein as the “Parties,” 

stipulate and agree as follows: 

A. Fru-Con filed a Complaint in this action on March 24, 2005 (“Complaint”). 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-00583-LKK -GGH Document 396 Filed 04/25/07 Page 2 of 5
600282268v1 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

27

28

STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND [PROP.] ORDER THEREON , 

Case No. 2:05-CV-0583-LKK/GGH

B. Count II of Fru-Con’s Complaint purports to allege a claim against the District for 

Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. 

C. Count III of Fru-Con’s Complaint purports to allege a claim against the District for 

Breach of an Implied Warranty of Correctness of the Plans and Specifications. 

D. Count V of Fru-Con’s Complaint purports to allege a claim against the District for 

Complaint for Construction Work, Labor, and Materials – Reasonable Value. 

E. Count VI of Fru-Con’s Complaint purports to allege a claim against the District for 

Breach of a Statutory Duty to Make Prompt Payment. 

F. The District filed its First Amended Counterclaim in this matter on December 22, 2006 

(“Counterclaim”). 

G. The Fourth Claim of the District’s Counterclaim purports to allege a claim against 

Fru-Con, Bilfinger Berger SA, Fru-Con Holding Corporation, and Teichert for Negligence. 

H. The Fifth Claim of the District’s Counterclaim purports to allege a claim against 

Fru-Con, Bilfinger Berger SA, Fru-Con Holding Corporation, and Teichert for Equitable Indemnity. 

I. The parties have reached an agreement under which they will dismiss their respective 

causes of action described above with prejudice, based on the specific agreement set forth below. 

J. In addition, the District and Fru-Con each filed motions against the other seeking 

sanctions for alleged destruction of evidence and other issues. The District filed a motion titled 

“Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s Motion for Sanctions Re Document Destruction” in this 

action on February 20, 2007. Fru-Con also filed a motion titled “Fru-Con Construction Corporation’s 

Motion for Sanctions” in this action on February 20, 2007. Collectively the above motions are 

referred to herein as the “Sanctions Motions.” 

K. The Court previously referred the Sanctions Motions to the Honorable Gregory 

Hollows for consideration. 

L. The parties respectfully request that the Court accept the Parties’ stipulation and enter it 

as a Court order. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Parties as follows: 

1. Fru-Con hereby dismisses its Count II for breach of the implied covenant of good faith 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-00583-LKK -GGH Document 396 Filed 04/25/07 Page 3 of 5
600282268v1 4

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

STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND [PROP.] ORDER THEREON , 

Case No. 2:05-CV-0583-LKK/GGH

and fair dealing, Count III for breach of an implied warranty of correctness of the plans and 

specifications, Count V for complaint for construction work, labor, and materials – reasonable value, 

and Count VI for breach of a statutory duty to make prompt payment against the District, all of which 

are dismissed with prejudice. 

2. Fru-Con’s dismissal with prejudice of its Count II and Count III as set forth in 

paragraph 1 above shall not preclude Fru-Con from (a) asserting as part of its Count I for breach of 

contract that the District breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and 

(b) asserting as part of its Count I for breach of contract that the District breached an implied warranty 

of the correctness of the plans and specifications. Likewise, the District retains all defenses and its 

right to contest the applicability of any such theories to this case and Fru-Con’s breach of contract 

claim against the District. 

3. The District hereby dismisses its fourth claim for negligence and fifth claim for 

equitable indemnity against Fru-Con, Fru-Con Holding Corporation, Bilfinger Berger, and Teichert 

with prejudice. 

4. The District’s dismissal with prejudice of its fourth claim for negligence shall not 

preclude the District from asserting that Fru-Con, Fru-Con Holding Corporation, and Bilfinger Berger 

SA breached the contract between the District and Fru-Con by exceeding the boundaries for grading 

the south laydown area of the project in violation of the applicable “404 Permit.” Likewise, Fru-Con 

retains all defenses and its right to contest that Fru-Con breached the contract in any way relating to 

grading the south laydown area of the project. 

5. Fru-Con and the District agree that the Sanctions Motions have been resolved by 

agreement between the parties, and each party hereby withdraws its respective motion with prejudice. 

Notwithstanding the above, neither Fru-Con nor the District waive any right to object to documents or 

testimony at trial on any ground whatsoever. 

6. Teichert and the District each agree to bear their own fees and costs of suit and waive 

any claim against the other for fees and costs herein incurred in connection with the District’s fourth 

claim for negligence and fifth claim for equitable indemnity and the dismissal of those claims, with 

prejudice, pursuant to this stipulation. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-00583-LKK -GGH Document 396 Filed 04/25/07 Page 4 of 5
600282268v1 5

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

STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND [PROP.] ORDER THEREON , 

Case No. 2:05-CV-0583-LKK/GGH

7. Fru-Con’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Wrongful 

Termination, Fru-Con’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count III of the District’s Amended 

Counterclaim on the Issue of False Claims, and Fru-Con’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on 

the District’s Claim for Monies Purportedly Paid to Dick Corporation are NOT affected by this 

Stipulation and Order, and such motions shall remain on calendar for oral argument on May 25, 2007 

pursuant to the Court’s Order of February 23, 2007. 

Dated: April ____, 2007 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 

BRIGHT AND BROWN 

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

By: /s/ John S. Poulos 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT 

Dated: April _____, 2007 DIEPENBROCK HARRISON 

MOORE & LEE, LLP 

WATT, TIEDER, HOFFAR & FITZGERALD, L.L.P. 

By: /s/ Charlie C.H. Lee 

Moore & Lee, LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants 

FRU-CON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and 

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND 

SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA and 

Counterdefendant A. TEICHERT & SON, INC. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 24, 2007. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:05-cv-00583-LKK -GGH Document 396 Filed 04/25/07 Page 5 of 5