Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mountain View Hospital, L.L.C., An Idaho Limited Liability Company v. Sahara

February 7, 2012

MOUNTAIN VIEW HOSPITAL, L.L.C., AN IDAHO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SAHARA, INC., A UTAH CORPORATION;
DAVIS ANDPARTNERSHIP, P.C., A COLORADO CORPORATION; JOHN DOES 1-10, DEFENDANTS.
SAHARA, INC., A UTAH CORPORATION,
CROSS CLAIM PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT,
v.
DAVIS PARTNERSHIP, P.C., A COLORADO CORPORATION, CROSS CLAIM DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF. SAHARA, INC., A UTAH CORPORATION, THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE BALLARD GROUP, A COLORADO CORPORATION, UNITED TEAM MECHANICAL, LLC, A UTAH LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, E.K. BAILEY CONSTRUCTION, INC., A UTAH CORPORATION, AND ENCOMPASS SERVICES CORPORATION, A UTAH CORPORATION, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS.
UNITED TEAM MECHANICAL, LLC, A UTAH LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF,
v.
BINGHAM MECHANICAL, INC., AN IDAHO CORPORATION; DIAMOND TEST & BALANCE, INC., A UTAH CORPORATION; AND SIEMENS, AN IDAHO CORPORATION, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: B. Lynn Winmill Chief Judge United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are the following motions: Defendant Sahara's Motion for Clarification (Dkt. 405), Defendant Siemens' Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration (Dkt. 408), Plaintiff Mountain View Hospital's Cross-Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration (Dkt. 434), and Third-Party Defendant Ballard's Motion for Clarification (Dkt. 426). These Motions concern the Court's Order on Summary Judgment Motions (Dkt. 398) and Memorandum Decision and Order (Dkt. 402). The Motions are ripe and at issue. The Court conducted an informal telephone status conference with counsel on 1/18/12, at counsel's request. However, the Court did not hear oral argument on the record, finding that a hearing would not significantly assist the decisional process. Being familiar with the record and having considered the parties' pleadings, the Court now enters the following order.

BACKGROUND

Financing and construction of a specialty surgical hospital in Idaho Falls, Idaho, began in 1999. That hospital, later named Mountain View Hospital, received its Certificate of Occupancy on January 15, 2003. However, problems with the humidification system and insulation, among other concerns, led to this law suit involving the project's general contractor, and various sub- and sub-subcontractors. The parties are as follows:

Plaintiff: Mountain View Hospital Defendant: Sahara -- design-build general contractor Defendant: Davis -- architect per subcontract with Sahara Cross-Claimant: Encompass -- mechanical systems installer per subcontract with Sahara Defendant: Siemens -- building controls installer per sub-subcontract with

Encompass

Third-Party Plaintiff: United Team Mechanical (UTM) -- HVAC installer per sub-subcontract with Encompass; UTM later assumed Encompass's subcontract Third-Party Defendant: Bingham -- plumbing installer (medical gas piping and wet side plumbing) per sub-subcontract with Encompass Third-Party Defendant: E.K. Bailey -- framing, insulation, and drywall installer, per subcontract with Sahara Third-Party Defendant: Ballard -- mechanical engineer, per subcontract with Sahara

Each party filed a motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment. The Court ruled on each motion in an Order dated September 30, 2011. That Order was followed by a Memorandum Decision entered on October 17, 2011. Sahara, Siemens, Ballard, and Mountain View each seek clarification and / or reconsideration of the Court's Decision and Order. Encompass also seeks entry of judgment.

LEGAL STANDARD

To the extent that the parties move for reconsideration, the Court applies the following legal standard. A motion to reconsider an interlocutory ruling requires analysis of two important principles: (1) that error must be corrected; and (2) that judicial efficiency demands forward progress. The former principle has led courts to hold that a denial of a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment may be reconsidered at any time before final judgment. Preaseau v. Prudential Insurance Co., 591 F.2d 74, 79-80 (9th Cir. 1979). The need to be right, however, must co-exist with the need for forward progress. A court's opinions "are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure." Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D.Ill.1988). Reconsideration of a court's prior ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) is appropriate "if (1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law." S.E.C. v. Platforms Wireless Int'l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1100 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

Where the parties have identified a ruling by the Court that is ambiguous, contradictory, or otherwise uncertain, so as to impede forward progress in the case, clarification is warranted and will be provided.

DISCUSSION

1. Sahara's Motion

Sahara seeks clarification on the issues of indemnification, attorney fees, and reconsideration of the Court's discharge of Sahara's claims against Encompass and UTM.

A. Indemnification

Sahara asks the Court to recognize that its indemnification rights are contractual and have not yet accrued, so that the Court's decision that Sahara's contract claims are time-barred should not apply to an indemnification claim that is based on contract. Sahara Mot. to Clarify, Dkt. 406 at 5. Sahara points out that its contracts with subsubcontractors contain indemnification language that mirrors language in Encompass's subcontract with UTM. Sahara reasons that, because the Court found that Encompass has a valid contractual ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.