Salt Lake City Corporation et al v. ERM WEST et al, No. 2:2011cv01174 - Document 270 (D. Utah 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 234 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 242 Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The hearing scheduled for March 16, 2015, is stricken. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 3/9/2015. (blh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Salt Lake City Corporation et al v. ERM WEST et al Doc. 270 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, et al., MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING CROSSMOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF DAMAGES Plaintiffs, v. ERM-WEST, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:11-CV-1174 TS This matter is before the Court on Cross-motions for Partial Summary Judgment on the issue of damages. Defendant, ERM West (“ERM”), moves the Court to order that Salt Lake City’s (the “City”) damages for ERM’s alleged breach of contract may not include remediation costs that are being paid by third parties. Plaintiff, the City, moves the Court to order that the City’s damages from ERM’s alleged breach of contract may not be limited by the City’s agreements with third parties. The Court will deny both Motions. Under Rule 56, summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 1 However, summary judgment is not appropriate in this instance because the parties seek a declaratory judgment on the issue of how to calculate damages. Defendant states, “ERM is not asserting that the City’s damages should be reduced because of any claim ERM has against the City—nothing of the sort. ERM merely seeks a ruling 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 1 Dockets.Justia.com on the proper measure of damages.” 2 ERM and the City do not seek judgment as to damages, but only seek an instruction on how to calculate damages. Summary judgment is not the appropriate vehicle to obtain such instruction. Therefore, the Court will deny both Motions for Summary Judgment and instruct the parties to raise the damage calculation issue when proposing jury instructions to be considered by the Court in the context of the facts to be submitted to the jury. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 234) is denied. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Cross-motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 242) is denied. Plaintiff and Defendant are directed to raise the issue of the proper damages calculation when proposing jury instructions. The hearing scheduled for March 16, 2015, is stricken. DATED March 9, 2015. BY THE COURT: ________________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 2 Docket No. 250, at 3. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
