Free Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 266

Filed 03/20/2006

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No. 03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP. - CALIFORNIA, a Utah corporation; BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP., a Utah corporation; BIG-D CORPORATION, a Utah corporation; BIG-D CAPITAL CORP., a Wyoming corporation; and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants/Counterclaimants, BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP. - CALIFORNIA, a Utah corporation; BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP., a Utah corporation; and Does 1-100, inclusive, Third Party Plaintiffs, v. MARELICH MECHANICAL CO., INC. dba UNIVERSITY MARELICH MECHANICAL, a California corporation, Third Party Defendant. MARELICH MECHANICAL CO., INC. dba UNIVERSITY MARELICH MECHANICAL, a California corporation, Third Party Plaintiff/Counterclaimant, v. BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP. - CALIFORNIA, a Utah corporation; FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation; and Roes 20 through 80, inclusive, Counterdefendant/Third Party Defendants.

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 266

Filed 03/20/2006

Page 2 of 5

THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT MARELICH MECHANICAL CO., INC. dba UNIVERSITY MARELICH MECHANICAL OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS AND THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFFS BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP.-CALIFORNIA ETC. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO PRECLUDE CLAIMS PREPARATION COSTS Third Party Defendant and Counterclaimant Marelich Mechanical Co., Inc. dba U i rtMa lh cai l" MM"fe t fl wn O psi tD f dn ad n ei v sy r i Mehn a( ec c U )ish o o i poio o e nat n l e l g tn e s Third Party Plaintiffs Big-D Construction Corp.-C lon ' e .clcvely referred to as afri s t ( l t i a , c oe i " i "Mo o i Lm n N . which seeks to preclude UMM from referring to and/or Bg ) t n n i i o9 -D i e presenting of evidence of claim preparation costs. I. INTRODUCTION

Big-D cites to no authority preventing UMM from including claim preparation costs in cm u n i dm gs nea m d i t acs t oy fa u t g a ae. n n o pt gt a ae udr " oie o lot h r o cl li dm gs I ay i s fd t " e c an eet fhria uso a t w e ecr ics a if tc i pea t n cs , ia vn it es qet n so ht re a ot r n a "lm r r i " ot i s , e i h tn s e c a p ao st question of fact, not admissibility. Big-D s o o sold be denied. 'm t n hu i

II. ARGUMENT Big-D s t n n Limine No. 9 is almost identical to its Motion In Limine No. 6 relating 'Mo o I i tt ec s n ft resf s In the present motion, Big-D seeks to preclude UMM from o h xl i o aony'e . e uo t e referring to and/or presenting of evidence of claim preparation costs. I prcl , e cs " n a i a t "ot tu r h s Big-Dseso r l e rU ek t pe u a MM'"t ao cs i l i t e pn hv g eoios cd e s li t n ot n u n i set ai dpsi ig i s cdg m n tn

2

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 266

Filed 03/20/2006

Page 3 of 5

t e,r a n t hv dpsi t e,tni dpsi s fde e e onl " The a npe r go ae eoio a naed g eoio o avr pr ne 1 k pi tn k t n tn s s .... basis of Big-D'm t ns conclusion that some of those costs are not allowable under s o o iits i California Code of Civil Code section 1033.5. However, Big-D ignores the fact that UMM has claimed that its subcontract with Big-D was abandoned and is therefore entitled to recover dm gs net " oie t acs m t d f un f n dm gs A sc, a ae udrh m d i o lot e o o qaty g a ae. s uhBig-D s e fd t " h ii ' motion is misplaced and premature. U MM's na project accounting includes all costs incurred in relation to a particular st dr a d po c i l i aony' rj t n u n t resfees. This is an appropriate method of accounting. UMM is seeking e, c d g t damages, as an alternative theory, under the modified total cost method. That method allows UMM to recover its actual costs incurred on the project, minus its estimated costs to perform the po cad n cs r u i f m U rj tn ay ot e ln r e s s t g o MM'e osiay (e Amelco Electric v. City of s r r fn. Se r , Thousand Oaks (2002) 27 Cal.4th 220.) Big-D cites to no authority preventing UMM from including claim preparation costs in computing its modified total costs. In any event, if there is a qet n so ht re a cs a if tc i pea t n" otia uso o f t uso a t w e ecr i ot r n a "lm r r i s cs s qet n fa , i h tn s e c a p ao s i c not admissibility. III. CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, Big-D s t n n i i N . must be denied. 'Mo o i Lm n o9 i e Respectfully submitted,

1

Isol b nt t t spli hs en ece t t e ethtv ec o aony'es w d ne t thu e o d h a t u t n a be r hd o h f ct ei ne ft resf o e udrh d e a i ao a e f a d t e e

3

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 266

Filed 03/20/2006

Page 4 of 5

Dated: March 20, 2006

McKENNA LONG AND ALDRIDGE LLP

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Peter J. Ippolito Peter J. Ippolito Laurence R. Phillips MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP 750 B Street, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-5400 Facsimile: (619) 595-5450 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Richard C. Kaufman Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov John H. Tatlock McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1875 Lawrence Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 634-4000 Facsimile: (303) 634-4400 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Attorneys for Counter-Defendant UNIVERSITY MARELICH MECHANICAL

indemnity clause of the Subcontract will not be submitted until after the trial on the remainder of the case.

4

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 266

Filed 03/20/2006

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 20, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT MARELICH MECHANICAL CO., INC. dba UNIVERSITY MARELICH MECHANICAL OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS AND THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFFS BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP.-CALIFORNIA ETC. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO PRECLUDE CLAIMS PREPARATION COSTS with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: Michael G. Bohn at [email protected] Bret Matthew Heidermann at [email protected] Francis (Frank) J. Hughes at [email protected] Christopher J. Hersey at [email protected] Patrick Q. Hustead at [email protected] Patrick T. Markham at [email protected] John D. Mereness at [email protected] Daniel J. Nevis at [email protected] C. Michael Montgomery at [email protected] N. Kathleen Strickland at [email protected] and I hereby certify that I have mailed or served the document or paper to the following nonCM/ECF participants in the manner indicated by the non-prc at nm : a ipn s a e ti ' Kevin A. Coles (via U.S. Mail) Coles Baldwin & Craft, LLC 1261 Post Road P.O. Box 577 Fairfield, CT 06824 s/Richard C. Kaufman Richard C. Kaufman Attorney for Third-Party Defendant Marelich Mechanical Co. MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLC 1875 Lawrence Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 634-4000 Fax: (303) 634-4400 e-mail: [email protected]
:22144262.1

5