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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?