Eric J Lindsey v. SLT Los Angeles LLC, et al

Filing 351

REVISED JUDGMENT by Judge Gary A. Feess. it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: Judgment in favor of Starwood and against Panache on Panache's claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. 1981; Judgment in favor of Starwood and against Panac he on Panache's claim for relief under the California Unruh Act, California Civil Code 51; Judgment in favor of Panache and against Starwood on Panache's claim for breach of contract; Damages are awarded to Panache in the sum of $21,07 0.70 on the claim for breach of contract for out-of-pocket costs; No damages are awarded to Panache on the claim of breach of contract for lost profits or lass of business goodwill; and No prejudgment interest is awarded to Panache on out-of-pocket costs or costs of suit. Plaintiff is awarded costs of suit. (bp)

1

NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERIC J. LINDSEY et al., dba EJAYS PANACHE IMAGES,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs,
vs.
STARWOOD HOTELS &
RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC. et
al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 02-3822 GAF (FMOx)
Hon. Gary A. Feess
REVISED JUDGMENT

1
2
3

Following a jury trial on the bifurcated issues of liability and damages,

judgment was entered on October 28, 2013 as follows [Dkt. No. 329]:
1.

4

WORLDWIDE, INC. (“Starwood”) and against Plaintiffs ERIC J.

5

LINDSEY, JOYCE FERGUSON, CHARMAINE HIRUKO,

6

JERRYLYNN P. JOHNSON, LUANNA LAWRENCE, MARTITIA

7

MCNEEL, BEVERLY NELSON, RUBY ROBERSON, CAROLYN

8

WILLIAMS dba E-JAYS PANACHE IMAGES (“Panache”) on

9
10

Panache’s claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1981;
2.

11

§ 51;
3.

14
15

4.

20
21

5.

Thereafter, the parties filed the following post-trial motions:
1.

Panache’s Rule 59 Motion for Prejudgment Interest [Dkt. No. 333];

2.

Starwood’s Rule 50(b) Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of
Law [Dkt. No. 337];

3.

24
25
26
27

Panache is further awarded costs of suit incurred herein in an amount
to be determined.

22
23

Damages are awarded to Panache in the sum of $65,070.70 on the
claim of breach of contract; and

18
19

Judgment in favor of Panache and against Starwood on Panache’s
claim for breach of contract;

16
17

Judgment in favor of Starwood and against Panache on Panache’s
claim for relief under the California Unruh Act, California Civil Code

12
13

Judgment in favor of Defendant STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS

Starwood’s Rule 59 Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment, or for New
Trial [Dkt. No. 338]; and

4.

Panache’s Rule 59 Motion for New Trial [Dkt. No. 339].

On March 4, 2014, the above-captioned Court ruled as follows on the parties’
post-trial motions [Dkt. No. 348]:

28

1

1

1.

2

Law [Dkt. No. 337] on Panache’s breach of contract claim with respect

3
4

to the out-of-pocket damage award was DENIED;
2.

5

to the award of lost profits and loss of business goodwill was

7

GRANTED;
3.

9
10

13
14
15
16
17

4.

On March 20, 2014, the above-captioned Court DENIED Panache’s Rule 59
Motion for Prejudgment Interest [Dkt. No. 349].
Pursuant to the Court’s Orders on the parties’ post-trial motions [Dkt. Nos.
348, 349], and superseding the prior judgment [Dkt. No. 329], it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
1.

2.

§ 51;
3.

23

27

Judgment in favor of Panache and against Starwood on Panache’s
claim for breach of contract;

4.

25
26

Judgment in favor of Starwood and against Panache on Panache’s
claim for relief under the California Unruh Act, California Civil Code

21

24

Judgment in favor of Starwood and against Panache on Panache’s
claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1981;

20

22

Panache’s Rule 59 Motion for New Trial [Dkt. No. 339] was
DENIED.

18
19

Starwood’s Rule 59 Motion for New Trial [Dkt. No. 338] was
DENIED; and

11
12

Starwood’s Rule 50(b) Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of
Law [Dkt. No. 337] on Panache’s breach of contract claim with respect

6

8

Starwood’s Rule 50(b) Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of

Damages are awarded to Panache in the sum of $21,070.70 on the
claim of breach of contract for out-of-pocket costs;

5.

No damages are awarded to Panache on the claim of breach of contract
for lost profits or loss of business goodwill; and

28

2

1

6.

2
3

No prejudgment interest is awarded to Panache on out-of-pocket costs
or costs of suit.

7.

Plaintiff is awarded costs of suit.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

DATED: March 31, 2014

___________________________________
Hon. Gary A. Feess
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3