Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02850/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02850-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN PEREZ, MICHAEL MOORE, 

and BRIDGETTE MOORE

Plaintiffs,

v.

VEZER INDUSTRIAL ORDER

PROFESSIONALS, INS., a

California Corporation and DOES 1-50 

inclusive,

Defendants.

___________________________ /

VEZER INDUSTRIAL 

PROFESSIONALS, INC.,

Third-Party Plaintiffs,

v.

PINPOINT HOLDINGS, INC.,

a Corporation, et al.

Third-Party Defendants.

___________________________ /

No. 2:09-CV-02850-TLN-CKD

ORDER VACATING THIS COURT’S 

PREVIOUS ORDER AND GRANTING 

PINPOINT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court pursuant to a memorandum filed by the Ninth Circuit to 

enter summary judgment on behalf of PinPoint Holdings, Inc. (“Pinpoint”). (ECF No. 237.) 

Pinpoint seeks summary judgment, or alternatively summary adjudication of issues, on a crossCase 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 238 Filed 06/03/15 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

2

claim by Vezer Industrial Professional, Inc. (“Vezer”) for express and equitable indemnity, on the 

basis that the indemnification agreement was not signed by both parties. (ECF No. 141.) The 

Court previously denied Pinpoint’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 206.) Pinpoint 

was subsequently granted an interlocutory appeal. (ECF No. 237.) Pursuant to the Ninth 

Circuit’s ruling, this Court hereby VACATES its previous ruling (ECF No. 206), and orders as 

follows:

California appellate courts have held that California Labor Code section 3864 requires an

indemnification agreement to be signed by all parties (i.e., both indemnitee and indemnitor) to be 

enforceable. Perez v. Vezer Industrials, Inc., No. 13-15399, 2015 WL 2373503, at *1, (9th Cir.

May 19, 2015); Nielsen Constr. Co. v. Int’l Iron Prods., 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 497, 500 (1993) 

(holding that section 3864 requires all parties to sign before the injury occurs); see also Hansen 

Mech., Inc. v. Superior Court, 47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 47, 53 (1995) (holding that the agreement was not 

properly executed because it was not signed by both parties).

Applying the Nielson and Hansen standard to the instant case, Pinpoint is entitled to 

summary judgment. It is undisputed that Vezer did not sign the purchase agreement containing 

the indemnification clause. (ECF No. 142.) This renders the indemnification clause 

unenforceable because it was not properly executed under section 3864. Perez, at *1. Therefore, 

Vezer is unable to recover under the indemnification clause in the purchase agreement as a matter 

of law. Perez, at *1. For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Pinpoint’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2015

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 238 Filed 06/03/15 Page 2 of 2