Kapa Investment v. Cirrus Design Corporation et al

Filing 241

JUDGMENT by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: This action was tried by a jury, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict in favor of defendants Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc. and Cirrus Design Corporation.It is ordered that : (1) Plaintiff Kapa Investment recover nothing and that the action be dismissed on the merits; (2) Defendant Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc. shall recover from Plaintiff Kapa Investment costs of suit as a prevailing party pursuant to F.R.C.P. 54, Local Rule 54-3 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 in the sum of $__________________________; and (3) Defendant Cirrus Design Corporation shall recover from Plaintiff Kapa Investment costs of suit as a prevailing party pursuant to F.R.C.P. 54, Local Rule 54-3 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 in the sum of $__________________________.(MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (ir)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
E-FILED 11-18-09 JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KAPA INVESTMENT, a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION; TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS; GARMIN INTERNATIONAL; L-3 COMMUNICATIONS AVIONICS; STEC, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: CV08-8446 PSG (JCx) JUDGMENT [PROPOSED]

This action was tried by a jury, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict in favor of defendants Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc. and Cirrus Design Corporation. It is ordered that: (1) (2) Plaintiff Kapa Investment recover nothing and that the action be Defendant Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc. shall recover from dismissed on the merits; Plaintiff Kapa Investment costs of suit as a prevailing party pursuant to F.R.C.P. 54,
JUDGMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Local Rule 54-3 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 in the sum of $__________________________; and (3) Defendant Cirrus Design Corporation shall recover from Plaintiff Kapa Investment costs of suit as a prevailing party pursuant to F.R.C.P. 54, Local Rule 54-3 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 in the sum of $__________________________.

DATED: November ____, 2009

18

PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2JUDGMENT