(Id. at 14) (quoting Lam Research Corp. v. Schunk Semiconductor, 65 F.Supp.3d 863, 870 (N.D. Cal. 2014)). Penn-Star argues that the doctrine of judicial estoppel also does not apply because Penn-Star has not taken two “clearly inconsistent positions” and the court did not accept Penn-Star's prior position. (Id. at 14-15) (citing Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. v. George Perry & Sons, Inc., 338 F.Supp.3d 1063, 1075 (E.D. Cal. 2018) (reciting the elements of judicial estoppel)).
Other courts applying California law also interpret Davis in this manner. (See Legacy Partners, Inc. v. Clarendon American Ins. Co. (S.D. Cal., Apr. 14, 2010, No. 08cv920 BTM (CAB)) 2010 WL 1495198, at p. *8, 2010 U.S.Dist. Lexis 36966 at p. *22 ["where the ‘care, custody or control’ is not exclusive, this exclusion does not apply"]; Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. v. George Perry & Sons, Inc. (E.D.Cal. 2018) 338 F.Supp.3d 1063, 1076-1078 [fact issue precluded summary adjudication as to whether the property owner had "exclusive and complete" control of bee hives maintained by beekeepers].) National Fire cites a preDavis out-of-state case, claiming it offers a better framework for interpreting the CCC exclusion. (Arrigo's Fleet Service, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. (1974) 54 Mich.App. 482, .)