L.A. International Corporation v. Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 380

AMENDED JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. SEE JUDGMENT FOR DETAILS. (iv)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

L.A. INTERNATIONAL CORP., et
al.,

14
15
16
17

Plaintiffs,

The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald,
United States District Judge

v.
PRESTIGE CONSUMER
HEALTHCARE, INC., et al.,

18
19

Case No. CV 18-6809-MWF (MRWx)

AMENDED JUDGMENT AFTER
TRIAL

Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
AMENDED JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL

1

This action came on regularly for jury trial between December 5, 2023, and

2

December 14, 2023, in Courtroom 5A of this United States District Court.

3

Plaintiffs L.A. International Corp., Manhattan Wholesalers Inc., Excel Wholesale

4

Distributors Inc., Value Distributor, Inc., Border Cash & Carry, Inc., AKR

5

Corporation, U.S. Wholesale Outlet & Distribution, Inc., Sanoor, Inc. (d/b/a L.A.

6

Top Distributor), Pittsburg Wholesale Grocers, Inc., and Pacific Groservice, Inc.

7

(together, with Pittsburg Wholesale Grocers, Inc., referred to as “PITCO”) were

8

represented by Randolph Gaw, Esq. and Mark Poe, Esq. of Gaw | Poe LLP.

9

Defendants Prestige Consumer Healthcare, Inc. (f/k/a Prestige Brands Holdings,

10

Inc.) and its wholly-owned subsidiary Medtech Products, Inc. (collectively,

11

“Defendants”) were represented by Michael Fox, Esq., C. Sean Patterson, Esq.,

12

Robert Kum, Esq., Christine Ross, Esq., and William Shotzbarger, Esq. of Duane

13

Morris LLP.

14

A jury of eight persons was regularly empaneled and sworn. Witnesses were

15

sworn and testified, and exhibits were admitted into evidence. The legal issues

16

(damages) were tried to the jury, and the equitable issues (injunctive relief) were

17

tried to the Court. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury

18

was duly instructed by the Court and the case was submitted to the jury. The jury

19

deliberated and thereafter returned a verdict as follows:

20

ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT CLAIM

21

1. Did any Plaintiff prove that the Defendants violated the Robinson-Patman

22

Act? (Instruction No. 17).

23

AKR

X

Yes

_____No

24

Border Cash & Carry

X

Yes

_____No

25

Excel Wholesale

X

Yes

_____No

26

L.A. International

X

Yes

_____No

27

L.A. Top Distributor

X

Yes

_____No

28

Manhattan Wholesalers

X

Yes

_____No

2
AMENDED JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL

1

PITCO

X

Yes

_____No

2

U.S. Wholesale

X

Yes

_____No

3

Value Distributor

X

Yes

_____No

4

If your answer to Question No. 1 is “Yes” for any Plaintiff, please answer

5

Question No. 2 as to that Plaintiff only.

6

If your answer to Question No. 1 is “No” for all Plaintiffs, please answer Question

7

No. 7.

8
9

2.

Did the Defendants prove, as to any Plaintiff, that the differences in

10

price for Clear Eyes given to Costco Business Center and Sam’s Club were to meet

11

the price of the Defendants’ competitor? (Instruction No. 24).

12

AKR

_____ Yes

X

No

13

Border Cash & Carry

_____ Yes

X

No

14

Excel Wholesale

_____ Yes

X

No

15

L.A. International

_____ Yes

X

No

16

L.A. Top Distributor

_____ Yes

X

No

17

Manhattan Wholesalers

_____ Yes

X

No

18

PITCO

_____ Yes

X

No

19

U.S. Wholesale

_____ Yes

X

No

20

Value Distributor

_____ Yes

X

No

21

If your answer to Question No. 2 is “Yes” for all Plaintiffs, please answer

22

Question No. 7.

23

If your answer to Question No. 2 is “No” for any Plaintiff, please answer Question

24

No. 3 as to that Plaintiff only.

25
26

3.

Did the Defendants prove, as to any Plaintiff, that the difference in

27

price for Clear Eyes given to Costco Business Center and Sam’s Club were

28

justified by cost differences? (Instruction No. 25).
3
AMENDED JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL

1

AKR

_____ Yes

X

No

2

Border Cash & Carry

_____ Yes

X

No

3

Excel Wholesale

_____ Yes

X

No

4

L.A. International

_____ Yes

X

No

5

L.A. Top Distributor

_____ Yes

X

No

6

Manhattan Wholesalers

_____ Yes

X

No

7

PITCO

_____ Yes

X

No

8

U.S. Wholesale

_____ Yes

X

No

9

Value Distributor

_____ Yes

X

No

10

If your answer to Question No. 3 is “Yes” for all Plaintiffs, please answer

11

Question No. 7.

12

If your answer to Question No. 3 is “No” for any Plaintiff, please answer Question

13

No. 4 as to that Plaintiff only.

14
15
16

4.

Did any Plaintiff prove that it was injured by the Defendants’

violations of the Robinson-Patman Act? (Instruction No. 27).

17

AKR

X

Yes

_____No

18

Border Cash & Carry

X

Yes

_____No

19

Excel Wholesale

X

Yes

_____No

20

L.A. International

X

Yes

_____No

21

L.A. Top Distributor

X

Yes

_____No

22

Manhattan Wholesalers

X

Yes

_____No

23

PITCO

X

Yes

_____No

24

U.S. Wholesale

X

Yes

_____No

25

Value Distributor

X

Yes

_____No

26

If your answer to Question No. 4 is “Yes” for any Plaintiff, please answer

27

Question No. 5 as to that Plaintiff only.

28

If your answer to Question No. 4 is “No” for all Plaintiffs, please answer Question
4
AMENDED JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL

1

No. 7.

2
3

5.

Did the Defendants prove that a Plaintiff failed to use reasonable

4

efforts to mitigate its damages under the Robinson-Patman Act? (Instruction No.

5

32).

6

AKR

_____ Yes

X

No

7

Border Cash & Carry

_____ Yes

X

No

8

Excel Wholesale

_____ Yes

X

No

9

L.A. International

_____ Yes

X

No

10

L.A. Top Distributor

_____ Yes

X

No

11

Manhattan Wholesalers

_____ Yes

X

No

12

PITCO

_____ Yes

X

No

13

U.S. Wholesale

_____ Yes

X

No

14

Value Distributor

_____ Yes

X

No

15

Regardless of your answer, please answer Question No. 6.

16
17
18

6.

What amount of damages did each Plaintiff prove for the Defendants’

violation of the Robinson-Patman Act? (Instruction No. 28).

19

AKR

$

25,000

20

Border Cash & Carry

$

0

21

Excel Wholesale

$

25,000

22

L.A. International

$

95,000

23

L.A. Top Distributor

$

25,000

24

Manhattan Wholesalers

$

25,000

25

PITCO

$

30,000

26

U.S. Wholesale

$

25,000

27

Value Distributor

$

100,000

28

Regardless of your answer, please answer Question No. 7.
5
AMENDED JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL

1
2
3
4

CALIFORNIA UNFAIR PRACTICES ACT CLAIM
7.

Did any Plaintiff prove that the Defendants violated the California

Unfair Practices Act? (Instruction No. 33).

5

L.A. International

X

Yes

_____No

6

L.A. Top Distributor

X

Yes

_____No

7

PITCO

X

Yes

_____No

8

U.S. Wholesale

X

Yes

_____No

9

Value Distributor

X

Yes

_____No

10

If your answer to Question No. 7 is “Yes” for any Plaintiff, please answer

11

Question No. 8 as to that Plaintiff only.

12

If your answer to Question No. 7 is “No” for all Plaintiffs, please sign and return

13

this form.

14
15

8.

Did the Defendants prove that the secret rebates were lawful because

16 they applied to different classes of customers? (Instruction No. 34).
17

L.A. International

_____ Yes

X

No

18

L.A. Top Distributor

_____ Yes

X

No

19

PITCO

_____ Yes

X

No

20

U.S. Wholesale

_____ Yes

X

No

21

Value Distributor

_____ Yes

X

No

22

If your answer to Question No. 8 is “Yes” for all Plaintiffs, please sign and return

23

this form.

24

If your answer to Question No. 8 is “No” for any Plaintiff, please answer Question

25

No. 9 as to that Plaintiff only.

26
27
28
6
AMENDED JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL

1

9.

Did the Defendants prove that the secret rebates were lawful because

2

they were justified by a good-faith attempt to meet competition? (Instruction Nos.

3

35–36).

4

L.A. International

_____ Yes

X

No

5

L.A. Top Distributor

_____ Yes

X

No

6

PITCO

_____ Yes

X

No

7

U.S. Wholesale

_____ Yes

X

No

8

Value Distributor

_____ Yes

X

No

9

Regardless of your answer, please answer Question No. 10.

10
11

10.

What amount of damages did each Plaintiff prove for the Defendants’

12

violations of the California Unfair Practices Act? (Instruction Nos. 37–38). (You

13

should answer this question without regard to any damages that you may have

14

awarded in response to Question No. 6. If necessary, the Court will ensure that no

15

double-counting takes place.)

16

L.A. International

$

90,000

17

L.A. Top Distributor

$

30,000

18

PITCO

$

75,000

19

U.S. Wholesale

$

5,000

20

Value Distributor

$

130,000

21
22
23

Following the jury’s verdict, on May 20, 2024, the Court made its Findings
of Facts and Conclusions of Law on the remaining equitable issues.

24

Now, therefore, pursuant to Rules 54 and 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil

25

Procedure, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that

26

final judgment in this action be entered as follows:

27
28

1.

Judgment is entered in favor of all Plaintiffs and against Defendants
on Plaintiffs’ claim for violation of Section 2(a) of the Robinson7
AMENDED JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL

1

Patman Act (15 U.S.C. § 13(a)). Judgment is entered in favor of

2

L.A. International Corp., Value Distributor, Inc., U.S. Wholesale

3

Outlet & Distribution, Inc., L.A. Top Distributor, and PITCO on

4

their claim for violation of the California Unfair Practices Act (Cal.

5

Bus. & Prof. Code § 17045).

6

2.

On Plaintiff L.A. International Corp.’s claim for relief for violation of

7

Section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act (15 U.S.C. § 13(a)):

8

Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff L.A. International Corp. and

9

against Defendants in the amount, after trebling pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§ 15(a), of $285,000.

10
11

3.

violation of Section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act (15 U.S.C.

12

§ 13(a)): Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Manhattan

13

Wholesalers Inc. and against Defendants in the amount, after trebling

14
15
16

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15(a), of $75,000.
4.

On Plaintiff Excel Wholesale Distributors Inc.’s claim for relief for
violation of Section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act (15 U.S.C.

17

§ 13(a)): Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Excel Wholesale

18

Distributors Inc. and against Defendants in the amount, after trebling

19
20

On Plaintiff Manhattan Wholesalers Inc.’s claim for relief for

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15(a), of $75,000.
5.

21

On Plaintiff Value Distributor, Inc.’s claim for relief for violation of
the California Unfair Practices Act (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17045):

22

Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Value Distributor, Inc. and

23

against Defendants in the amount, after trebling pursuant to California

24

Business & Professions Code section 17082, of $325,000.

25

6.

On Plaintiff Border Cash & Carry, Inc.’s claim for relief for violation

26

of Section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act (15 U.S.C. § 13(a)):

27

Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Border Cash & Carry, Inc.

28

and against Defendants in the amount of $0.
8
AMENDED JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL

1

7.

On Plaintiff AKR Corporation’s claim for relief for violation of

2

Section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act (15 U.S.C. § 13(a)):

3

Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff AKR Corporation and against

4

Defendants in the amount, after trebling pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15(a),

5

of $75,000.

6

8.

On Plaintiff U.S. Wholesale Outlet & Distribution, Inc.’s claim for

7

relief for violation of Section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act (15

8

U.S.C. § 13(a)): Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff U.S.

9

Wholesale Outlet & Distribution, Inc. and against Defendants in the
amount, after trebling pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15(a), of $75,000.

10
11

9.

California Unfair Practices Act (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17045):

12

Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff L.A. Top Distributor and

13

against Defendants in the amount, after trebling pursuant to California

14
15
16

Business & Professions Code section 17082, of $75,000.
10.

entered in favor of Plaintiff PITCO and against Defendants in the

18

amount, after trebling pursuant to California Business & Professions

19

21

On Plaintiff PITCO’s claim for relief for violation of the California
Unfair Practices Act (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17045): Judgment is

17

20

On Plaintiff L.A. Top Distributor’s claim for relief for violation of the

Code section 17082, of $187,500.
11.

On Plaintiffs L.A. International Corp.’s, Manhattan Wholesalers
Inc.’s, Excel Wholesale Distributors Inc.’s, Value Distributor, Inc.’s,

22

AKR Corporation’s, U.S. Wholesale Outlet & Distribution, Inc.’s,

23

L.A. Top Distributor’s, and PITCO’s claims for relief for violation of

24

Section 2(d) of the Robinson-Patman Act (15 U.S.C. § 13(d)):

25

Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs L.A. International Corp.,

26

Manhattan Wholesalers Inc, Excel Wholesale Distributors Inc., Value

27

Distributor, Inc., AKR Corporation, U.S. Wholesale Outlet &

28
9
AMENDED JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL

1

Distribution, Inc., L.A. Top Distributor, and PITCO and against

2

Defendants.

3

12.

On Plaintiff Border Cash & Carry, Inc.’s claim for relief for violation

4

of Section 2(d) of the Robinson-Patman Act (15 U.S.C. § 13(d)):

5

Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff

6

Border Cash & Carry, Inc.

7

13.

On Plaintiffs L.A. International Corp.’s, Value Distributor, Inc.’s,

8

U.S. Wholesale Outlet & Distribution, Inc.’s, L.A. Top Distributor’s,

9

and PITCO’s claims for relief for violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203): Judgment is

10

entered in favor of Plaintiffs L.A. International Corp., Value

11

Distributor, Inc., U.S. Wholesale Outlet & Distribution, Inc., L.A. Top

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

Distributor, and PITCO and against Defendants.
14.

Defendants shall:
a. Allow all Plaintiffs (including any successor entities to
Plaintiffs) other than Border Cash & Carry to purchase Clear
Eyes on the same price terms and conditions on which
Defendants sell Clear Eyes to the Costco Business Center
division of Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”),
including the availability of any discounts, billback, rebates
(including rebates such as the “Instant Redeemable Coupons”),
or other terms that impact the net price paid by Costco.
b. Allow Plaintiffs (including any successor entities to Plaintiffs)
other than Border Cash & Carry to participate, on
proportionally equal terms, in all promotional programs and
payments that Defendants make available to Costco in
connection with the handling, sale, or offering for sale of Clear
Eyes (including payments such as the DOW allowance).
10
AMENDED JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL

1

c. Allow Plaintiff Border Cash & Carry (including any successor

2

entity) to purchase Clear Eyes on the same price terms and

3

conditions on which Defendants sell Clear Eyes to the Sam’s

4

Club division of Walmart, Inc. (“Sam’s Club”), including the

5

availability of any discounts, billbacks, rebates, or other terms

6

that impact the net price paid by Sam’s Club.

7

d. For a period of five years from the date of final judgment,

8

Defendants shall semi-annually submit a report to Plaintiffs’

9

counsel (on a “confidential” basis under the terms of the

10

existing protective order) stating the list price Defendants are

11

then-charging to Costco and to Sam’s Club for Clear Eyes and

12

the effective date of any increase or decrease in that price, along

13

with an itemization and summary of any discounts, rebates,

14

promotional terms, or other payments that Defendants make to

15

Costco and Sam’s Club in conjunction with sales of Clear Eyes.

16

The semi-annual reports shall be signed under oath by an

17

officer of one of the defendant companies.

18

15.

19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiffs shall recover post-judgment interest according to law. 28
U.S.C. § 1961

16.

Plaintiffs may seek to recover attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by
law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court retains jurisdiction over any
matter pertaining to this judgment.

24
25

Dated: June 5, 2024.

26
27
28

_______________________________
______________________________
MICHAEL
MICHA
AEL W. FITZGERALD
FITZGERA
ALD
United States District Judge
11
AMENDED JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL