Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. v. Mt. Grant Electric et al, No. 3:2006cv00309 - Document 119 (D. Nev. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING ACIC's 113 Motion for Summary Judgment. Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Brian E. Sandoval on 2/10/2009. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/11/2009: # 1 Main Document) (DRM).
Download PDF
RCCENED yjjo yjayjs tz E N I ' E I EZ qj '*-* t X UNSFL/FSFIICSY *71 . 1 ï 2 gjg jg mgg 3 4 Q CFKIJSDISIRIU : R1 ;1uyl:IPFy2yA()# pE?t$7'Y . 5 C By: 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT O F NEVADA 8 United States ofAmerican forthe use and benefltcfCONSO LIDATED ELECTRICAL 9c DoIS rpToR ra IB ti o Un T, ORS,INC.,aforei gn 10 F3llli rlti ff, 11 . V. 3:06-cv-00309-BES-RAM ) onoEn j 1 ) . 1 2 MT.GRANTELECTRIC.anunknownenti ty;; 13 DAY & ZIMMERMANN FIAW THORNE CO RPORATION;a Delaware corporation; 14 and AM ERICAN CONTRACTO RS INDEM NIW CO .,a surety, ' 15 Defendants. ) ) '' f i 16 . . . ) 17A CM OM ER PA ICN AYN,CONTRACTORSINDEMNI W) j8 Crosscl aimant, - 9 , 19 V. Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. v. Mt. Grant Electric et al Doc. 119 . . ) 2 0 MT.GRANTELECTRIC, 21 ; ) 2 2 23 ; ) Crossdefendant. . ) AM ERICAN CONTM CTORS INDEMNIR ) 24 COMPANY, ) Third Party Plaintiff, ) 25 ) v. ) 26 ) MERLIN J.HALL,anindividual;KATHY ) 27 THYNE'an individual;DOES IthroughX, ) inclusive, ) 28 ) Third Party Defendants.) ! ) . ) : I Dockets.Justia.com 1 Currently before the Gourtis Defendant/crossclaim anG hird Party Plainti; Am erican 2 ContradorsIndemnitycompany's('' ACIC*)Motionforsummaryludgmentt#ll3lfiledonMay 3 27,2008. Defendant/crossdefendant Mt. Grant Electric (''Mt.Gsanf') and Third Party 4 Defendants MerlinJ.Halland KathyThyne (collectively referred to herein as the 'Mt.Grant 5 Defendantsp')filed an Opposition toAmerican Contractors lndemnity Company's Motionfor 6 SummaryJudgment(#116)onJune25,2008,andACIC fileda Reply(#117)onJuly9,2008. 7 BACKG RO UND 8 This case involves a claim forindem nification broughtby ACIC againstthe Mt.Grant 9 Defendants.l OnApril12,2005,Mt.G rantsubm itted an eled ricalconstruction bid to Day & 10. ZimmermanHawthorneCorporationCDZHC'')topedorm anelectricaljobatthe UnitedStates 11 army base in Hawthorne,Nevada. (Opposition to ACIC'S Motion forSum mary Judgment ' 12 (#116)at2).DZHC accepted the Mt.Grantbid forthe projed .However,becausethe army 13 base was owneibythe federalgovernment,Mt.G rantwas required to obtain botha paym ent 14 bond and a performance bond before itcould be awarded the contrad to perform the work.z 15 As a resultofthisrequirem ent,Mt.Grantcontaded ACIC to obtainthe necessary bonds,and 16 ACIC issued the bonds as surety forMt.G rant. 4 #=.at3. As pad ofthe transaction forthe . 17 bonds,onJune 13,2005,ACIC faxed a GeneralIndemn' ltyAgreement(' $GlA'')to Mt.Grant. ls y=. underthe GIA,Mt.Grantagreedto ' 'indemnify,defend and hold ACIC harmless foraII 19 Iossesandcosts,includingatlorneys'feesandcosts.''(MotionforsummaryJudgment(#113) . 20 at3). 21 According to the Mt.GrantDefendants,atthe tim e they executed the G IA,they were 22 undera tim e constraintfrom DZHC,The Mt.G rantDefendants state that''DZHC was growing 23 extrem ely im patient,and had indicated to Mt.G rantthati tw ould cancelthe contractunless 24 25 1The initialcomplaintwas filed in thism atteron M ay 9.2006,by Consolidated Electrical oistributors(''CED'')againstvariousdefendants.(Complaint(//1)).In April2008 asettlementwas 26 reachedamongcertainpartiesandaStipulationandOrderofDismissal(#1l4)wasenteredonJune9. 2x s.Theindemnifk adon ciaim b)'ACIC againsttheM t.GrantDefendmusistheonlycauseofaction 27 rem aining in thecase. 22 2 40 U.S.C.j 3133(b)pro' îridqsthatbefqre anl'contraclisawarded --forthe construction. alteralion.orrepairofan).public buildlng ol.publlc ' w.ork ofthe Fedel.alGoA'enunent.apel.son naust funaish to the Gm zelmm em -'a pcrform ance bond and a pal' m entbond. i l 2 . . . 1 Mt.Grantimmediatelysecured the bonds.''(Opposition to ACIC'S Motionto Dismiss (#116) 2 at3). As a result,the ownerofMt.Grant,Merlin J.Hall(''Hall'')'' quickly signed''the GlA 3 ''without reading it,had itnotarized,and Fed Ex'd''the G lA back to AClC.3 ld. Hallhad 4 obtained bonds in the pastduring his ten years in the electricalbusiness;however,'he had 5 neverseen orbeen requiredto enterintoan indemnityagreement.''Ld=.Accordingtothe Mt. . 6 GrantDefendants,as a result.ofHall's ''Iack ofexperience,' Hallbelieved thatx the G lA from 7 ACIC 'i w as sim ilarto an insurance agreement,''and thatthe G IA ''would obligate the suretyto . .. 8 defend its custom ers in the event ofa dispute and thatitwould ' also require the surety . to . 9 proted its customers'bond rating.''.1 . I. 10 OnJune20,2005,Mt.Grantbeganworkontheprojed forDZHC.However,because 11 ofa problem withthe eledlicalwire,workwashalted in November2005.J#.at4.Asa result ' . 12 ofthis problem ,udisputes arose as to who caused the dam age to the wire and w ho was 13 responsible forreplacing the defedive wire.''1 . 1.AlthoughMt.Grantremained ontheprojed . 14 hoping to continue work,in June 2006,Mt.Grant''Ieftthe DZHC job site tofind otherjobs.' 15 Ldw.at6.OnNovem ber27,2006,DZHC notifiedACIC thatMt.Grant'scontractwith DZHC for 16 workatthe armybase wascancelled.Ld.. 17 On M ay 9,2006,CED asserted a claim againstthe paymentbond issued to Mt.Grant 18 byACIC afterMt.Grantfailedto issue paymentformaterialsand laboronthe DZHC project.4 19 (Motion forSummary Judgment (#113)at4). DZHC also asseded a claim againstthe 20 peHbrmance bond issued by ACIC to Mt.GrantafterDZHC term inated its contractwith M t. 21 Grant. According to ACIC,in response to the claim s subm i tted by CED and DZHC,AC IC 22 soughtto enforcethe GlA againstMt.Grantincluding the indemnityclause.Ld=. 23 Thedutyto indemnifyinthe GIA statesthat''(i)n considerationoftheexecution and 24 25 3 A CIC faxedtheG1A totheM t.CzrantDefendantson June 13.2005.(Opposition to ACIC ,s 26 MotionforSummaryJudgment(#116)atExhibitA .p.2)rDZHC had indicatedtoHallthatitwould cance1thecontractunlessMtGram securedthgbondsoraletterofintentfrom ACIC byJune20,2005. 27 Ld=.AlthoughHallmal'haveieltpresëuredtoslgntlleG1A izmnediatell'.hj'hydssveraldal'stchreadthe G1A orconsultwith som eoneregardlng them eaningofitsterm sbeforeslgnlng 1t. 28 . 4CED had suppiied M t.Gram u'ith Bire fo1.the pl.oiect. (Opposition to ACIC .s M otion for Sum m an'. ludgm ent (#l16)a:3). F , 1 delivery.by(ACIC)ofa Bond orany Bondson behal fofIMt.Grant),IMt.Grant)agreesto 2 indemnifyandholdIACICJharmlessfrom andagainstanyandaIIdemands,liabilities,Iosses,. 3 costs,damages,attorheys'fees and expenses ofwhateverkind ornature''which arise by 4 reason of'' the execution by IACICIofanyBond on behalfofIMt.Grant)....'. i #=.atExhibit2. 5 The GIA also contains a provision thatin fudherance.ofsuch indem nity,ACIC i'shallhave the . 6 rightin its sole andxabsolute discretion to determ ine whetherany claim s underny.Bond.or 7 Bondsshallbe paid,compromised,adjusted,defended,prosecuted orappealed.'' Id.at . . 8 Exhibit.2.. M oreover,the provision states thatACIC ''shallhake the.rightto inqur.such . 9 expenses in handling a claim as it shalldeem necessary,including .but not lim ited to the 10 expenses forinvestigative,accounting,engineering and Iegalservices.'' 1 1.atExhibit2. . . 11 . ' As noted inthe foregoing,although the otherclaim s inthiscase have been settled,the 12 indem nification claim byACIC againstthe Mt.GrantDefendantsisstillpending.ACIC argues 13 thatitisenti tledtojudgmentasamatterofIaw onthisclaim basedonthe indemni typrovision 14 intheGIA.(MotionforSummaryJudgment(#113)at2).Specifically,ACIC statesthatthe Mt. 15 GrantDefendants ''executed the GIA in consideration forACIC issuing two bonds as surety 16 forMt.GrantElectric.''Id. MoreoMer,''ltlhe GlA unambiguouslysetsfodhthatIthe Mt.Grant 17 Defendants)are Iiable to ACIC forany and aIIIosses,including attorneys'fees and costs 18 incurred byACIC in consequence ofAC IC'Sexecution ofthe bonds.'' Id.Thus,because the 19 M t.G rantDefendants ''are clearly contractually obligated to indem nify A C IC pursuantto the 20 GlA,''ACIC arguesthatitisentitledtosummaryjudgment. 21 In response,the M t.G rantDefendants argue thatthe indem nity provision should not 22 be enforced againstthem because (1)the GIA is an adhesion contrad' ,(2)the GIA is 23 unconscionable' ,and (3)justice and equi ty require thatthe GlA be setaside. (Opposition to 24 ACIC'SMotionforSummaryJudgment(#116)). 25 AMALYSIS 26 Summaryjudgmenti'shallbe renderedforthwi th i fthepleadings,depositions,answers 27 to interrogatories,and adm issions on file,togetherwith the affidavits,ifany,show thatthere 28 isno genuine issue asto any materialfactant thatthe m oving party is entitied tcjudgment I 1 as a matterofIaw.'' Fed.R,Civ.P.56(c). A materialissue offactis one thataffects the 2. o'utcome oflhe litigationand requiresatrialto resolvethe differingkersionsofthetruth.Lvnn . 3' v.SheetMetalW orkers Int'lAss'n,8O4 F.2d 1472,1483 (9th Cir.1986). The burden of ' 4 dem onstrating the absence ofa genuine issue ofm aterialfactIies with the m oving party,and 5 for.this purpose,the m ateriallodged by the m oking party m ustbq viewed in the Iightm ost . 6 favorable tothe nonmoving party.Adickesv,.S.H.Kress& Co.,398 U.S.144,157 (j970). , 7 Martinezv.Ci tyofLosAnoeles,141F.3d 1373,1378(9thCir.1998). 8 . . . . Anydispute regarding a m aterial.issue offactm ustbe genuine- the evidence m ustbe . 9 such that1'a reasonable jury could return a verdid forthe nonmoving party,'' . (4.. Thus, . . 10 'Iwlhere the record taken as a whole could notIead a rationaltrieroffactto find forthe 11 nonmoving pady,' there is no genuine issue fortriar and sum mary judgment is proper. 12 MatsushitaElec.Indus,Co.v.ZenithRadioCorp.,475U.S.574,587(1986). '' A mere scintilla 13 ofevidencewillnotdo,forajury is permitted to draw onlythose inferencesofwhich the 14 evidence is reasonably susceptible;i tm ay notresortto speculation.'' British Airwavs Bd.v. 15 Boeinc C0.,585 F.2d 946,952 (9thCir.1978).Theevidencem ustbe significantlyprobative, 16 and cannotbe merelycolorable.Andersonv.LibertvLobbv.lncv,477 U.S.242,250 (1986). . 17 Conciusory allegations that are unsuppoded by fad ualdata cannot defeat a m otion for 18 summaryjudgment.Taviorv.List,880 F.2d 1040,1045 (9th Cir.1989). 19 ln a contractcase,i'Islum maryjudgmentis appropriate when the contractterms are 20 clearand unam biguous,even i f the parties disagree as to their m eaning.'' Kassbaum v. 21 StennenwolfProd.,lnc., 236 F. 3d 487,491 (9thCir.2000).UnderNevada Iaw,a contractis - 22 cl earand unam biguous ifit'is notreasonably susceptible to m ore than one interpretation.'' 23 Univ.ofNevada.Renov.Stacev,116 Nev.428,431,997 P.2d 812,814 (Nev.2000). 24 Indem nity agreem ents by a surety seeking reim bursementforpaym ents made on a 25 bond orforcosts incurred in consequence ofexecution ofa bond ''have been consistently 26 upheld as valid and enforceable.''Em niovers Ins.ofW ausau v.Able G reen.Inc.,749 F.supp. 27 1100,1103 (S.D,Fla 1990). Nevada Iaw has upheld indemnity agreements in the surety ::8 context. See Transamerica PremierIns.Co,v.Nelson.110 Nev.951,878 P.2d 314 (Nev. 1994)(stating thata GIA holding a surety harmiess foraIIexpenses conseguentialtc the ! . 5 1 issuance ofabond isanenforceable agreementl' ,see alsoins.Co.oftheW estv.GibsonTile . 2 Comnany.Inc.,122 Nev.455,134 P.3d 698 (Nev.zotfltholdingthatasurety.hasxthe rightto 3 pursueitsindemni ficationclaimsunder' theplaintermsofageneralindemnityagreementl.s ' . ' 4 lntheirresponsetoACIC'Smotionforsummaryjudgment,theMt.GrantDefendantsdonot'' 5. argue thatindemnity agreem ents in generalare unenforceable. Rather,as noted,the M t. 6 G rantDefendants argue thatthq GlA should notbe enforced againstthem because iti; an 7 adhesion contrad ,is uncônscionable,and should be setaside underprinciples ofequity@nd 8 justice. 9 1. Adhesion Contracl 10 ' . . Nevada Iaw defines an adhesion contrad as a ''standardized contractform offered to 11 consum ers ofgoods and services essentially on a ' take itorleave i t'basis,withoutaffnrding 12 the consumera realisticoppodunityto bargain,and undersuch conditions thatthe consum er 13 cannotobtainthedesired produd orservice exceptby acquiescing to theform ofthe contrad .'' 14 ObstetricsandGvnecologistsv.PeDDer,1O1Nev.105,107,693P.2d1259,1260(Nev.1985). 15 According to the Nevada Supreme Court,the ''distind ive feature ofan adhesion contrad is 16 thatthe weakerpady has no choice asto itsterm s.''Id.However,an ''adhesion contractneed 17 notbe unenforceable i fitfallswithin the reasonable exped ations ofthe weakeror'adhering' 18 party and is notunduly oppressive.'' Id. 19 Here,the M t.G rantD efendants argue thatthe G lA is an adhesion contractbecause 20 they were required to enter into it before they could obtain a bond uwhich,in turn,was a 21 prerequisitetoobtainingthecontrad withDZHC.''(OppositiontoACIC'SMotionforSummary 22 Judgment (#116)at 10). Moreover,the Mt.Grant Defendants state that ''ltlhere is no 23 evidence''thatthey ''knowingly consented to the term s''ofthe GIA, Id. Instead,according to 24 the Mt.GrantDefendants ''the onl y evidence establishes thatthey signed''the GIA. (d. ln 25 response,ACIC states that the Mt.G rant Defendants cannot be relieved of ''contractual 26 obligations which they freely assum ed'' as a business entity engaged in a business 27 261 flnupholdinggeneralindemni' t)'agreemenlsytheNeA'adaSupremeCoun hasstatedtha:asurep' isentitled toinclgnm ificaîion because-sureties.unlikeinsurers.profitsolell'from thepremiulnsthe). ' 1collect. lndem m fication rights guard againslllotcntiallosses.help reduce the sureTl'-s risk.and keep f .prem ium sretatiArel). 'lov ... lns. Co.of-the 'h;..est.13u p.yj: ay , y(. jy. . f. 1 ! 1 transaction.(Reply(#117)at4).Moreover,ACIC notesthatthe Mt.GrantDefendantscould 2 haveobtained the ''requisite bonds from any numberofsurety companies,''and.thatjust ' 3 because the G IA wàs a standàrdized contractdoes notm ean thatitcould nothave been 4 m odified to m eetthe intentofthe padies. Id. '5 In this m atter,the Courtfindsthatthe G IA is notan adhesion contrad . The Mt.Grant 6 Defendants have notprovided any evidence thatthey did nothave an opportuni ty to bargain ' 7 with ACIC overthe term softhe agreementor.thatthey were.required to enterinto the G IA on . . 8 a ''take it or Ieave itbasis.''6 Notably,Mt. Grant is a business aentity and the M t.G rant 9 Defendants concede thatHall''had obtained bonds in the pastduring his ten years in the 10 electricalbusiness.''(OppositiontoACIC'SMotionforSummaryJudgment(#116)at3).The . . . ' 11 factthatHallonlyhad ''ahigh schooleducation''and thad neverseenan indem nityagreem ent'' ' . ' 12 does notturnwthe GIA into an adhesion contract. As a result,the G IA cannotbe setaside 13 based on this argum ent. 14 15 . II. Unconscionability The Mt.GrantDefendants also argue thatthe GIA cannotbe enforced againstthem 16 becauseitwasunconscionable.(Opposi tiontoACIC'SMotionforsummaryludgment(#116) 17 at10).AccordingtotheMt.GrantDefendants,the GlA isboth procedurallyandsubstantively 18 unconscionable because it is an adhesion contrad and because ACIC retained the sole 19 discretion to determ ine w hether any claim s should be paid underthe bond. Id. at 11. ln 20 response,AC IC notesthatsim ilarindem nityagreem entshave been routinelyenforced in both 21 Nevadaandotherjurisdictions.(Reply(#117)at5).lnaddition,ACIC arguesthatthe GlA is 22 notan adhesion contractand thatitis also notsubstantively unconscionable. In this regard, 23 ACIC statesthat''Iallthough the GIA does provide broad coverage toACIC,theterms ofthe 24 GlA are notoppressive.'' Id, AC IC also states thatthe rightto settle clause noted by the Mt. 25 GrantDefendants is com m on in indem nity agreem ents and routinely enforced by courts, 26 1117 6The M t.GrantDefendants argue thatthey entered into the G1A on a take itorleave itbasis becausrACIC faxedtlgeapelmenttothem onll'daysbeforeaJune20lbdeadil 'neimposedb).DZHC.** .' 28 (OpposltiontoACIC sMotlonforSummar) qt #1 . lAs ar-eslud. lt.Ho thewe Mt t C' )IJAu.d-jome rd1 d(n oî16 o) bta at in10) the clI' 1d. Nr. erGr .ta hy ls DefeydantsstqtethatHalleithersigned the r dejtdllnewaslmposed b)'DZHC and 110:ACIC. hloreoA'qs r such an assenpon does notproA'iae an).' . e' y'ldzncethatthetennsoftheGlA u'ouid na:bznegalialec b)'ACIC. M j I # : . 1 ' . . Nevada law providesthata courtm ayinvalidate an unconscionable contractorcontract 2 clause.. D.R.Horton.Inc.v.Green,120 Nev.549,553,96,P.3d 1159,1162 (Nev.2004). 3 ''Generally,both proceduralànd substantive unconsciènabili ty m ustbe presentin orderfora 4 courtto exercise its diBcretion and refuse to enforce a ,..clause as unconscionable.'' ld. 5 (quoting Burch v,Dist.Ct.,118 Nev.438,/#2,49 P,3d 647,650 (Nev.2002)). A clause is 6 ''procedurally unconscionable when a pady lacks a m eaningfulopportunity to agree to the 7 clause termB either because . ofunequalbargaining power,as in an adhesion contract,or 8 because the clause and itseffedsare notreadilyascertainable upon a review ofthe contrad ,'' . 9 Id.at554,49 P.3d at1162.iiproceduralunconscionabilityoften involvesthe use offine print 10 orcom plicated,incom plete orm isleading Ianguage thatfails to inform a reasonable person . 11 ofthecontradualIanguage'sconsequences.''ld.(citingAm /Airlines.lnc.v.W olens,513U.S. 12 219,2d9(1995)(O'Conner,J.,concurringl).Substantive unconscionability,ontheotherhand, 13 ''focuses on the one-sidedness ofthe contractterms.'' Id. 14 In this case,the Courtfinds that the GIA is neitherprocedurally norsubstantively 15 unconscionable.As noted in the foregoing,the GIA is notan adhesion contract. Moreover, 16 the Mt.Grant Defendants have not argued that the term s of the GIA were not readily 17 aBcedainable upon a review ofthe contrad . Rather,the M t.G rantDefendants concede that 18 they sim ply did notread the term s ofthe agreem ent. However,the Mt.G rant Defendants' 19 fajlure to read the agreem entdoes not m ake the term s ofthe agreem ent unconscionable.? 20 In addi tion,the GIA is notsubstantively unconscionable. A l though ACIC concedes thatthe 21 G 1A provides itwith broad coverage,the M t.GrantDefendants have notargued thatthe G lA 22 wasentirelyone-sided.M oreover,sim ilarsettlem entclausesasthe onefound intheG lA have 23 been repeatedly upheld by couds. See Em nlovers Ins.ofW ausau,749 F.supp.at1100. 24 111. Equity and Justice 25 Finally,theMt.GrantDefendantsarguethatprinciplesofequityandjustice requirethat 26 the GlA be setaside, (OppositiontoACIC'S Motion forSummary Judgment(#116)at11). 27 'ag 7 Accordingto theNinth Circuit.--apar' t)'whosignsawritten agreenaentyeneralll'isboundb)' - itstenns.eA'enthough heneitherreadsitnol.considersthelegalconsequellcesofslgningi:.--Oneratint EnzineersPension Truslh'.Gillianl.ï?7F.2d 45(l1.15(1 4 (9th Cir.lC)8' #.). ldoreoA'er.asnoled in the foregoing.lhe :1:.Gran:D efelldants had seA'eraldal's to read the G1A priorlc.signing it. ' E; 1 ' . 't , 1 The Mt.G rantDefendants note thatsoon afterbeginning work ''HalIfound him selfenm eshed 2 in a chain ofevents over which he had no control,forwhich be bore no fault,and which 3 ultimately forced him ,forthe firsttime,to Ieave a projed unfinished.' . 1. 1.The Mt.Grant 4 Defendants fudher state that while they 'dare in no way suggesting thatACIC has been . 5 negligentand should notrecoveras a result,the Mt.G rantDefendantsare Iikewise notatfault 6 forthe events thathave occurred and the resulting financialfate thathas befallen them .'' Id. 7 at12.As a result,the Mt.GrantDefendants argue thatthe G 1A be setaside. 8 Although the Court.recognizesthe hardship placed onthe Mt.GrantDefendants bythe 9 eventsthatoccurred during the DZHC project,the Courtcannotsetasidea contract'imerely 10 because ...perform ance becomesmoredi l cultorexpensivethananticipated bythe padies.'' ' . 11 Citrone v.SNJAssoc.,682 A.2d 92,95 (R.I.1996).Asnoted bythe Mt.GrantDefendanls, 12 ACIC was notatfaultfor any ofthe events thatoccurred. Rather,the entirety ofACIC'S 13 obligation arose from i ts undedaking on behalfofthe Mt.G rantDefendants.As a result,this 14 Coud cannotBetasidethe agreementMt.G rantezecuted wi th ACIC.SeeTransam erica,110 15 Nev.at956,878P.2dat317 (statingthatasimilarGIA entitledthe suretytoafullrecoveryof 16 expenses incurred in defending the ad ion on a bond because ''in the case ofa surety sued 17 on a bond, the surety generally has no culpability whatsoever, and the entirety of its 18 obligationsarisesfrom itsundedaking on behalfofthe indemnitorand principalobligorr). 19 C O NC LU SIO N 20 Fortheforegoing reasons,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED thatAclc'sM otionforSum m ary 21 Judgment(#113)is GRANTED. 22 The Clerkofthe Courtshallenterjudgmentaccordingly. 23 Dated this 10th day ofFebruary,2009. 24 25 26 United tates lstrictJudge 27 28 l 9 r ë