Dominic Investments v. Sentinel Ins. Co. ( 2024 )

E-mail: andy.downs@bullivant.com 2 Ted A. Smith, SBN 159986 E-mail: ted.smith@bullivant.com 3 BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC 4 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94104 5 Telephone: 415.352.2700 Facsimile: 415.352.2701 6 Attorneys for Defendant Sentinel Insurance 7 Company, Ltd. 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 12 DOMINIC INVESTMENTS, a California LLC; Case No.: 2:22-cv-01450-JAM-KJN ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC., a California 13 corporation, STIPULATION AND ORDER 14 REGARDING CLAIM FOR "BRANDT Plaintiffs, FEES" 15 vs. 16 SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., 17 a Connecticut corporation; THE HARTFORD; 18 and DOES 1 to 10, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Plaintiffs Dominic Investments, and Roseville Flooring, Inc. and defendant Sentinel 22 Insurance Company, Ltd. stipulate as follows: 23 1. Plaintiffs have made a claim for “Brandt Fees,” that is attorneys fees awarded 24 pursuant to Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 813 (1985). 25 2. In the event the jury returns a verdict finding a breach of the implied covenant of 26 good faith and fair dealing by defendant Sentinel, the parties prefer that the issue of the amount 27 of fees due under Brandt be determined by the court and not the jury. 28 2 fees due be determined by the court on motion post-verdict, with no evidence or argument of the 3 amount claimed for attorney’s fees offered in the presence of the jury. The parties intend this 4 stipulation to be one made pursuant to the instructions given in Brandt at 37 Cal.3d at 819-20 5 that the parties may stipulate to have fees determined by the court rather than the trier or fact. 6 DATED: January 3, 2024 7 BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC 8 9 By /s/ Andrew B. Downs Andrew B. Downs 10 Ted A. Smith 11 Attorneys for Defendant Sentinel Insurance 12 Company, Ltd. 13 DATED: January 5, 2024 14 LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH WEST LAW EAGLES, PC 15 16 17 By /s/ Eric D. Townsend* (*tel. auth.) Joseph West 18 Eric D. Townsend 19 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dominic Investments and Roseville Flooring, Inc. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 ORDER 3 The parties having stipulated and good cause appearing, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the questions of whether plaintiffs are entitled to 5 attorney’s fees under Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 813 (1985), and if so, the amount of 6 those fees shall be determined on motion following the entry of a verdict in this matter. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: January 05, 2024 /s/ John A. Mendez THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 9 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28