Southern California Gas Co. v. Syntellect, Inc., 534 F. App'x 637

Syntellect contracted to provide a customized IVR "System" (including custom application programs per the RFP) to Southern California Gas Company (SoCal).
Third-party Katz sued SoCal alleging copyright/patent infringement based on services enabled by Syntellect’s system; SoCal settled that suit.
SoCal sought indemnification from Syntellect under a broad contractual indemnity covering claims "arising from" infringement or misappropriation "in connection with the System."
The district court granted partial summary judgment requiring Syntellect to indemnify SoCal for the settlement and excluded evidence regarding allocation of liability among potentially responsible parties.
Syntellect appealed both the indemnity ruling (liability/extent) and the in limine exclusion of allocation evidence; the Ninth Circuit affirmed liability but vacated the exclusion ruling and remanded for allocation proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Syntellect must indemnify SoCal for third‑party infringement claims arising from the System	SoCal: The indemnity covers any claims "arising from" infringement connected to the System; Syntellect’s work causally produced the accused services	Syntellect: Argued the claims fall outside the contract or are not causally related to its contractual performance	Held: Affirmed — broad "arising from" language and factual admissions show causal relation; Syntellect liable on indemnity issue
Whether Syntellect forfeited discovery/challenge to magistrate’s discovery limitations	SoCal: Discovery exclusion order was proper; Syntellect failed to timely seek review	Syntellect: Challenged the magistrate’s discovery restrictions as erroneous	Held: Forfeited — Syntellect failed to timely request district‑court review, so rule upheld
Whether the district court properly excluded evidence on allocation of settlement among responsible parties	SoCal: Settlement amount is presumptively reasonable evidence of its liability and the full amount should be borne by Syntellect	Syntellect: Argued allocation is necessary because indemnity may be limited and other parties may share liability; evidence relevant to apportionment was improperly excluded	Held: Reversed — district court abused discretion; allocation evidence must be considered and district court must decide apportionment on remand

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Am. Dynasty Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 101 Cal. App. 4th 1038 (Cal. Ct. App.) (broad interpretation of "arising from" language and causal‑relation test)
Cont'l Heller Corp. v. Amtech Mech. Servs., Inc., 53 Cal. App. 4th 500 (Cal. Ct. App.) (contract interpretation focuses on parties' intent from clear language)
Peter Culley & Assocs. v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. App. 4th 1484 (Cal. Ct. App.) (settlement is presumptive evidence of indemnitee liability; allocation may be required among multiple liable parties)
Mel Clayton Ford v. Ford Motor Co., 104 Cal. App. 4th 46 (Cal. Ct. App.) (settlement presumptively evidences liability of indemnitee, not necessarily indemnitor)
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (U.S. Supreme Court) (district court abuses discretion when based on erroneous view of law)