C&C Properties, Inc. v. Shell Pipeline Company, 1:14-cv-01889

C&C Properties purchased land in Bakersfield, California for commercial development, unaware of unrecorded easements or existing underground pipelines owned by Shell Pipeline Company and Alon Bakersfield Property.
C&C discovered the pipelines months later, sent demand letters to the pipeline owners to relocate them, but the pipelines were not moved until December 2015, delaying development.
C&C sued Shell and Alon for trespass and, in the alternative, breach of easement, seeking damages based on economic loss or the benefit the defendants gained from the use of the pipelines.
At trial, a jury found for C&C on trespass, awarding roughly $33.2 million against Shell and $6.1 million against Alon, measured by benefits obtained.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that damages could only accrue after the defendants were put on notice, and that the method used to calculate Alon’s damages was legally flawed. The case was remanded for reconsideration of damages awards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Alon’s damages award could be reduced or must be vacated	Reduce to $180,000 (costs avoided) on judicial estoppel grounds	No evidence supports costs avoided; jury did not find this amount	Jury's award stricken; no damages against Alon
Whether Shell’s damages award could be revised without a new trial	Revise award based on gross revenues from 10/4/14 to 12/2015	New trial required, or reduce to net profits; methodology unclear	New trial not required; remittitur to Shell’s gross revenues
Methodology of damages calculation for Shell	Jury used gross revenues after June 2014 demand letter	Jury could have used net profits based on evidence of costs	Impossible to determine exact method; court preserves maximum award
Entitlement to postjudgment interest	Sought postjudgment interest	Opposed interest given discrepancies in damages calculations	Denied; complexity supported refusal

Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. Marilyn Monroe LLC, 692 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2012) (judicial estoppel prevents a party from making contradictory arguments)
Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., 52 F.4th 1054 (9th Cir. 2022) (remittitur must reflect the maximum amount sustainable by the proof)
Bailey v. Outdoor Media Group, 155 Cal. App. 4th 778 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (damages for wrongful occupation may include profits where credible expense evidence is presented)
Johansen v. Combustion Eng’g, Inc., 170 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 1999) (verdict can be modified to exclude legally impermissible amounts)
Furman v. Cirrito, 782 F.2d 353 (2d Cir. 1986) (costs vacated upon reversal or substantial modification of judgment on appeal)