Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00949/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00949-27/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.

 /

AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIMS.

 /

The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s offer of proof and

defendant’s reply brief. Upon review, the court concludes that a

hearing on the contract, prior to trial, is not appropriate. 

The offer of proof and the reply demonstrate that the parties

dispute what documents constitute the final contract and how

certain terms of the contract should be interpreted. 

////

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 450 Filed 07/21/06 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

2

Under California law, determining which documents constitute

the contract is a question usually for the judge, and not the jury.

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Handley, 76 Cal.App.3d 956, 961 (Cal. App. 2d

Dist. 1978). Furthermore, it is clear that extrinsic evidence is

admissible in determining whether the contract is fully integrated.

Brawthen v. H & R Block, Inc., 28 Cal.App.3d 131, 137 (Cal. App.

1st Dist. 1972). The offers of proof suggest that the parties will

rely on extensive extrinsic evidence in establishing which

documents constitute the contract. Moreover, there may be

credibility determinations with respect to this evidence. 

Therefore, the court defers resolution on the integration issue

until it receives all the evidence presented at trial. The court

will rule on the integration issue at that time.

The court also defers judgment with respect to the

interpretation of the terms of the contract. Under California law,

the “interpretation of a contract is a question of law unless the

interpretation turns on the credibility of extrinsic evidence.”

Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center v. Bonta, 107 Cal.App.4th 237,

245 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2003). Again, the court defers resolution

on this issue until it receives all the evidence presented at

trial. At that point, the court will evaluate whether the

extrinsic evidence raises credibility questions (and thus must be

resolved by the jury) or if the court can make determinations as

to the terms based on the evidence presented. 

////

////

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 450 Filed 07/21/06 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

3

For these reasons, the court declines to set a hearing prior

to trial on the issue of the contract. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 20, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 450 Filed 07/21/06 Page 3 of 3