LGarde Inc v. Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems

Filing 303

JUDGMENT by Judge George H. Wu, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:The Court hereby enters judgment in favor of Defendant Raytheon Companyand against Plaintiff LGarde, Inc. on both causes of action and all claimsthereunder. Plaintiff LGar de, Inc. shall take nothing by its Complaint, which is dismissed with prejudice. Defendant Raytheon Company is entitled to recover itscosts of suit, may submit an application to tax costs, and may seek attorneys fees where appropriate. 1. 290 , 302 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (pj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Donald G. Featherstun (State Bar No. 107976)
E-mail: [e-mail]
Giovanna A. Ferrari (State Bar No. 229871)
E-mail: [e-mail]
560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

J S -6

Aaron Belzer (SBN 238901)
E-mail: [e-mail]
Daniel P. Wierzba (State Bar No. 291290)
E-mail: [e-mail]
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, California 90067-3021
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
RAYTHEON COMPANY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

L'GARDE, INC., a California
corporation,

) Case No. CV 11-04592-GW(AGRx)
)
) JUDGMENT
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
RAYTHEON SPACE AND AIRBORNE )
SYSTEMS, a business of RAYTHEON )
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

27
28
Judgment
Case No. 2:11-CV-04592 GW (AGRx)

1

This case brought by Plaintiff L’Garde, Inc. (“L’Garde”) against Defendant

2

Raytheon Company (“Raytheon”) 1 involves two causes of action, one for fraud

3

and one for breach of contract. (Dkt. No. 1)

4

On September 6, 2013, this Court granted Defendant Raytheon’s Second

5

Motion for Summary Judgment on L’Garde’s second cause of action for fraud, on

6

the basis that L’Garde could not have justifiably relied on the alleged

7

misrepresentations. (See Dkt. No. 165 (the “Order”)).

8

In the Order, this Court also made findings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (g) and

9

granted in part Raytheon’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to

10

L’Garde’s first cause of action for breach of contract, “except as to the issue of

11

Defendant’s alleged failure to negotiate and the breach of the implied covenant of

12

good faith and fair dealing.” (See Dkt. No. 165).

13

A jury trial in this matter came before this Court on January 28, 2014 on the

14

two remaining contract claims. After receiving and hearing evidence from both

15

parties, but before submitting the matter to the jury for deliberation, on February 4,

16

2014, this Court granted Raytheon’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law as to

17

the two remaining contract claims. (See Dkt. No. 290). Specifically, the Court

18

found that: (1) there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for L’Garde

19

on its alleged failure to negotiate claim because L’Garde did not have any reliance

20

damages as required under Copeland v. Baskin Robbins U.S.A., 96 Cal. App. 4th

21

1251, 1260-1264 (2002), and Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., Case No.

22

C 05-00334 RMW, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41026, at **123-125 (N.D. Cal. May

23

14, 2009); and (2) there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for

24

L’Garde on its claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair

25

dealing because L’Garde did not allege or prove any acts by Raytheon which were

26

precluded by the implied covenant, and therefore could not allege or prove any

27

breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

28

1

Erroneously sued as Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems.
1
Judgment
Case No. 2:11-CV-04592 GW (AGRx)

1

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:

2

The Court hereby enters judgment in favor of Defendant Raytheon Company

3

and against Plaintiff L’Garde, Inc. on both causes of action and all claims

4

thereunder. Plaintiff L’Garde, Inc. shall take nothing by its Complaint, which is

5

dismissed with prejudice. Defendant Raytheon Company is entitled to recover its

6

costs of suit, may submit an application to tax costs, and may seek attorneys’ fees

7

where appropriate. 1.

8
9

DATED: February 20, 2014

By:

Hon. George H. Wu
United States District Court Judge

10
11
12

Proposed Order prepared by:

13

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

14
15

By:

16

Donald G. Featherstun
Giovanna A. Ferrari
Aaron Belzer
Daniel P. Wierzba

17
18
19

/s/ Donald G. Featherstun

Attorneys for Defendant
RAYTHEON COMPANY

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1. Plaintiff L’Garde has objected to the inclusion of the reference to any application for attorney’s fees by
Defendant. In leaving the language in the Judgment, this Court does not find that Defendant has a basis for such
application or that any such application would be successful. Likewise, the Court does not, at this time, bar
Defendant from making such application.

27
28
2
Judgment
Case No. 2:11-CV-04592 GW (AGRx)