Anthony California, Inc. v. Fire Power Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 186

JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: NOTE: CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THIS DOCUMENT. In accordance with the special verdict of the jury and the opinion of the Court, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that: 1. Plaintiff, Anthony C alifornia, Inc., recover the sum of $75,761.80 against Defendants, Fire Power Co., Ltd., New Bright Jet Lighting (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Interest Plus Investments Limited, Chien Tsai Tsai, and Chien Ho Tsai, as set forth above, for statutory dam ages for Copyright Infringement; 2. Plaintiff, Anthony California, Inc., recover the sum of $286,606.02 against Defendants, Fire Power Co., Ltd., New Bright Jet Lighting (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Interest Plus Investments Limited, Chien Tsai Tsai, and Chien Ho Tsai, jointly and severally, as compensatory damages for Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; 3. Counter-Claimants, Fire Power Co., Ltd., New Bright Jet Lighting (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Interest Plus Investment s Limited, recover the sum of$75,761.80 against Counter-Defendant, Anthony California, Inc., as amount owed on open book account; 4. The award of statutory damages for Copyright Infringement and amount owed on open book account shall offset; 5. The sums awarded by this court as compensatory damages bear post-judgment interest from the date this judgment is entered until it is paid; and 6. Plaintiff recover its taxable costs of suit in this matter as taxed by the Clerk under the provisions of Rule 58. (bm)

1 Travis J. Tom (SBN 198711); [e-mail]

Audrey L. Khoo (SBN 254007); [e-mail]

2 Kenneth K. Hsu (SBN 208315); [e-mail]

CHANG & COTÉ, LLP

3 19138 E. Walnut Drive North, Suite 100

Rowland Heights, CA 91748

4 Telephone: [phone]
5

Facsimile: [phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiff / Counter-Defendant,

6 ANTHONY CALIFORNIA, INC.
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

EASTERN DIVISION

11 ANTHONY CALIFORNIA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

12
13

JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL
VERDICT

vs.

14 FIRE POWER CO., LTD.; NEW
15
16
17
18
19
20

Case No. 5:15-CV-00876-JGB-SP

BRIGHT JET LIGHTING
(SHENZHEN) CO., LTD.; INTEREST
PLUS INVESTMENTS LIMITED;
CHIEN TSAI TSAI; CHIEN HO TSAI;
JAMES MORAN; M & M SALES,
INC.; and DIRECT LIGHTING,
L.L.C.; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,
Defendants.

(Fed. R. Civ. P. 49(a), 58)
Honorable Jesus G. Bernal

NOTE: CHANGES HAVE BEEN
MADE TO THIS DOCUMENT

AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIMS

21
22
23

This cause came on for trial before the jury on May 8, 2018. Both parties

24 appeared by counsel, and the Court submitted questions to the jury and the jury
25 answered those questions as follows on May 16, 2018:
26
27
28

1
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

1
2
3
4

1.

Do you find that Plaintiff Anthony California Inc. is the owner of a

valid copyright in the Lamp Designs?
Yes

5
6

No

A.

VA 1-938-070
(Exhibit 22)

__________

____X_____

B.

VA 1-938-072
(Exhibit 23)

____X____

__________

C.

VA 1-938-067
(Exhibit 24)

__________

____X_____

D.

VA 1-938-116
(Exhibit 25)

____X____

__________

E.

VA 1-938-122
(Exhibit 26)

____X____

__________

F.

VA 1-938-118
(Exhibit 27)

____X____

__________

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

If your answer to any part of question 1 is “yes”, then answer question 2-5. If you
answered each part of question 1 as “no,” proceed directly to page 9.

21
22
23
24

2.

Do you find that Fire Power Co., Ltd., New Bright Jet Lighting

(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and/or Interest Plus Investments Limited copied and sold the
Lamp Designs in an unauthorized manner?

25
26
27
28
2
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

Yes

1
2

A.

3

VA 1-938-070
(Exhibit 22)

4

If yes, was it

__________

____X_____

6
7

Willful

Non-willful

Innocent

_______

5

__________

_________

Yes

8
9

No

B.

10

VA 1-938-072
(Exhibit 23)
If yes, was it

No

____X____

__________

12

Willful

Non-willful

Innocent

___X___

11

__________

_________

13
14
15
16

Yes
C.

17

VA 1-938-067
(Exhibit 24)
If yes, was it

No

__________

____X_____

19

Willful

Non-willful

Innocent

_______

18

__________

_________

20

Yes

21
22
23

D.

VA 1-938-116
(Exhibit 25)

No

__________

____X______

24
25
26
27
28
3
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

1

If yes, was it

Willful

Non-willful

Innocent

_______

__________

_________

2
3
4

Yes

5

E.

6
7

____X____

VA 1-938-122
(Exhibit 26)
If yes, was it

No
__________

9

Willful

Non-willful

Innocent

___X___

8

__________

_________

10

Yes

12

F.

13

VA 1-938-118
(Exhibit 27)

14

If yes, was it

No

__________

11

____X______

16

Non-willful

Innocent

_______

15

Willful

__________

_________

17 Proceed to question 3.
18

3.

If you answered “Willful,” Non-willful,” or “Innocent” to any Lamp

19 Design in question 2, what is the amount of statutory damages that Plaintiff Anthony
20 California, Inc. is entitled to recover from Fire Power Co., Ltd., New Bright Jet
21 Lighting (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and/or Interest Plus Investments Limited? Note: The
22 statutory range for damages are as follows:
23

-Willful infringement: $750 - $150,000 per Lamp Design

24

-Non-willful infringement: $750-$30,000 per Lamp Design

25

-Innocent infringement: $200-$30,000 per Lamp Design.

26
27
28
4
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

1

Fire Power

New Bright

Interest Plus

2

Amount:

Amount:

Amount:

3

A.

VA 1-938-070
(Exhibit 22)

$___0____

$___0____

$___0____

B.

VA 1-938-072
(Exhibit 23)

$_7,576.18

$_7,576.18

$_7,576.18

C.

VA 1-938-067
(Exhibit 24)

$___0____

$___0____

$___0____

D.

VA 1-938-116
(Exhibit 25)

$___0____

$___0____

$___0____

E.

VA 1-938-122
(Exhibit 26)

$_7,576.18

$_7,576.18

$_7,576.18

F.

VA 1-938-118

$___0____

$___0____

$___0____

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

(Exhibit 27)

15
16

Total $_45,457.08

17
18

Proceed to question 4.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

4.

Do you find that Chien Tsai Tsai and/or Chien Ho Tsai copied and sold

the Lamp Designs in an unauthorized manner?
Yes
A.

VA 1-938-070
(Exhibit 22)
If yes, was it

No

__________

____X_____

Willful

Non-willful

Innocent

_______

__________

_________

28
5
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

Yes

1
2

B.

3

VA 1-938-072
(Exhibit 23)

4

If yes, was it

____X____

__________

6
7

Willful

Non-willful

Innocent

___X___

5

__________

_________

Yes

8
9

No

C.

10

VA 1-938-067
(Exhibit 24)
If yes, was it

No

__________

____X_____

12

Willful

Non-willful

Innocent

_______

11

__________

_________

13
14
15
16

Yes
D.

17

VA 1-938-116
(Exhibit 25)
If yes, was it

19
20

22
23
24
25

__________

____X______

Willful

Non-willful

Innocent

_______

18

21

No

__________

_________

Yes
E.

VA 1-938-122
(Exhibit 26)
If yes, was it

No

____X____

__________

Willful

Non-willful

Innocent

___X___

__________

_________

26
27
28
6
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

Yes

2

F.

3

VA 1-938-118
(Exhibit 27)

4

If yes, was it

No

__________

1

____X______

6

Non-willful

Innocent

_______

5

Willful

__________

_________

7 Proceed to question 5.
8
9

5.

If you answered “Willful,” Non-willful,” or “Innocent” to any Lamp

10 Design in question 2, what is the amount of statutory damages that Plaintiff Anthony
11 California, Inc. is entitled to recover from Chien Tsai Tsai and/or Chien Ho Tsai?
12 Note: The statutory range for damages are as follows:
13

-Willful infringement: $750 - $150,000 per Lamp Design

14

-Non-willful infringement: $750-$30,000 per Lamp Design

15

-Innocent infringement: $200-$30,000 per Lamp Design.

16
17

Chien Tsai Tsai

Chien Ho Tsai

18

Amount:

Amount:

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

A.

VA 1-938-070
(Exhibit 22)

$___0____

$___0____

B.

VA 1-938-072
(Exhibit 23)

$_7,576.18

$_7,576.18

C.

VA 1-938-067
(Exhibit 24)

$___0____

$___0____

D.

VA 1-938-116
(Exhibit 25)

$___0____

$___0____

27
28
7
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

1

E.

VA 1-938-122
(Exhibit 26)

$_7,576.18

$_7,576.18

F.

VA 1-938-118
(Exhibit 27)

$___0____

$___0____

2
3
4
5

Total $_30,304.72

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRET

1
2

1.

Was Anthony California, Inc. the owner of confidential customer,

3

inventory, sales, pricing, and product data (collectively “Confidential Information”)

4

housed on Anthony California’s secure website via unique login identification

5

numbers?

6
7

_____X______ Yes

____________ No

8 If your answer to question 1 is “yes,” then answer question 2. If you answered “no,”
9 proceed directly to page 12.
10
11
12
13
14

2.

Was this Confidential Information secret at the time of the alleged

misappropriation?
_____X______ Yes

____________ No

15 If your answer to question 2 is “yes,” then answer question 3. If you answered “no,”
16 proceed directly to page 12.
17
18
19
20
21

3.

Did this Confidential Information have actual or potential independent

economic value because they were secret?
_____X_______ Yes

____________ No

22 If your answer to question 3 is “yes,” then answer question 4. If you answered “no,”
23 proceed directly to page 12.
24
25
26

4.

Did Anthony California, Inc. make reasonable efforts under the

circumstances to keep the Confidential Information secret?

27
28
9
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

_____X______ Yes

1

____________ No

2

If your answer to question 4 is “yes,” then answer question 5. If you answered “no,”

3

proceed directly to page 12.

4
5

5.

6

Did Defendants acquire, use or disclose the trade secrets by improper

7 means?

______X______ Yes

8
9
10

____________ No

If your answer to question 5 is “yes,” then answer question 6. If you answered “no,”
proceed directly to page 12.

11
12

6.

13

Was Defendants’ improper acquisition, use, or disclosure of the

14 Confidential Information a substantial factor in causing Anthony California, Inc.
15 harm?
16

____________ Yes

_____X_______ No

17

If your answer to question 6 is “yes,” then answer question 7. If you answered “no,”

18

proceed directly to page 12.

19
20
21

7.

Did Defendants act willfully and maliciously so as to justify an award of

22 punitive damages?
23

____________ Yes

____________ No

24
25
26

Proceed to question 8.

27
28
10
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

1
2

8. What are ANTHONY CALIFORNIA, INC.’s damages?
•

3

Past economic loss
lost earnings $_____________________________________________

4
5

lost profits $_______________________________________________

6

other past economic loss $____________________________________

7

Total Past Economic Damages: $_________________________________

8
9

•

Future economic loss

10

lost earnings $_____________________________________________

11

lost profits $_______________________________________________

12

other future economic loss $__________________________________

13
14

Total Future Economic Damages: $_______________________________

15
16

TOTAL $______________________________________________________

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE

1

ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

2
3
4

1.

Did Anthony California, Inc. and 1) American Furniture Warehouse,

5

and/or 2) Raymour & Flanigan have an economic relationship that probably would

6

have resulted in an economic benefit to Anthony California, Inc.?

7
8

_____X______ Yes

____________ No

9 If your answer to question 1 is “yes,” then answer question 2. If you answered “no,”
10 proceed directly to page 15
11
12
13
14

2.

Did Defendants know of the relationship?

_____X_______ Yes

____________ No

15 If your answer to question 2 is “yes,” then answer question 3. If you answered “no,”
16 proceed directly to page 15
17
18

3.

Did Defendants 1) manufacture and sell infringing products and

19

wrongfully deprive Anthony California of its sales, and/or 2) intentionally delay

20

shipment of Anthony California products to disrupt these economic relationships?

21
22

_____X______ Yes

____________ No

23 If your answer to question 3 is “yes,” then answer question 4. If you answered “no,”
24 proceed directly to page 15.
25
26
27
28
12
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

1

4.

By engaging in this conduct, did Defendants intend to disrupt the

2 relationships or know that disruption of the relationships was certain or substantially
3 certain to occur?
4
5
6
7

_____X_______ Yes

____________ No

If your answer to question 4 is “yes,” then answer question 5. If you answered “no,”
proceed directly to page 15.

8
9
10
11
12
13

5.

Was the relationship disrupted?

_____X______ Yes

____________ No

If your answer to question 5 is “yes,” then answer question 6. If you answered “no,”
proceed directly to page 15.

14
15

6.

Was Defendants’ conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to

16 Anthony California, Inc.?
17
18
19
20

_____X______ Yes

____________ No

If your answer to question 6 is “yes,” then answer question 7. If you answered “no,”
proceed directly to page 15.

21
22
23
24
25

7.
•

What are Anthony California, Inc.’s damages?
Past economic loss
lost earnings $_____________________________________________

26

lost profits $_191,070.68_____________________________________

27

other past economic loss $____________________________________

28
13
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

Total Past Economic Damages: $_191,070.68_______________________

1
2

•

3

Future economic loss
lost earnings $_____________________________________________

4
5

lost profits $_95,535.34______________________________________

6

other future economic loss$___________________________________

7

Total Future Economic Damages: $_95,535.34______________________

8
9
10

•

Past noneconomic loss, including mental suffering: $_________________

•

Future noneconomic loss, including mental suffering: $_______________

11
12

TOTAL $_286,606.02____________________________________________

13
14

TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-SIX THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED AND

15

SIX AND 02/100 DOLLARS.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

BREACH OF CONTRACT: BOOK ACCOUNT

1
2

1.

Did you find that Anthony California, Inc. and Fire Power Co., Ltd., New

3

Bright Jet Lighting (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Interest Plus Investments Limited Fire

4

Power had financial transactions?

5
6

_____X______ Yes

____________ No

7 Proceed to question 2.
8
9

2.

Did you find that Fire Power Co., Ltd., New Bright Jet Lighting

10

(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Interest Plus Investments Limited kept an account of the

11

debits and credits involved in the transactions?

12
13

_____X______ Yes

____________ No

14 If your answer to question 2 is “yes,” then answer question 3. If you answered “no,”
15 proceed directly to page 16.
16
17

3.

Did you find that Anthony California, Inc. owes Fire Power Co., Ltd.,

18

New Bright Jet Lighting (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and/or Interest Plus Investments

19

Limited money on the account?

20
21

_____X______ Yes

____________ No

22 If your answer to question 3 is “yes,” then answer question 4. If you answered “no,”
23 proceed directly to page 16.
24
25
26

4.

The amount of money owed by Anthony California, Inc. is:
$_75,761.80_________________________

27
28
15
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

1

In accordance with the special verdict of the jury and the opinion of the Court,

2

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:

3

1.

Plaintiff, Anthony California, Inc., recover the sum of $75,761.80

4 against Defendants, Fire Power Co., Ltd., New Bright Jet Lighting (Shenzhen) Co.,
5 Ltd., Interest Plus Investments Limited, Chien Tsai Tsai, and Chien Ho Tsai, as set
6 forth above, for statutory damages for Copyright Infringement;
7

2.

Plaintiff, Anthony California, Inc., recover the sum of $286,606.02

8 against Defendants, Fire Power Co., Ltd., New Bright Jet Lighting (Shenzhen) Co.,
9 Ltd., Interest Plus Investments Limited, Chien Tsai Tsai, and Chien Ho Tsai, jointly
10 and severally, as compensatory damages for Intentional Interference with
11 Prospective Economic Advantage;
12

3.

Counter-Claimants, Fire Power Co., Ltd., New Bright Jet Lighting

13 (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Interest Plus Investments Limited, recover the sum of
14 $75,761.80 against Counter-Defendant, Anthony California, Inc., as amount owed
15 on open book account;
16

4.

The award of statutory damages for Copyright Infringement and

17 amount owed on open book account shall offset;
18

5.

The sums awarded by this court as compensatory damages bear post-

19 judgment interest from the date this judgment is entered until it is paid; and
20

6.

Plaintiff recover its taxable costs of suit in this matter as taxed by the

21 Clerk under the provisions of Rule 58.
22
23
24 DATED: May 31, 2018
25

_______________________________
_______________________________
_
_ _
_
Honorable
Honorable Jesus G. Bernal
o
Bernal
UNITED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I

26
27
28
16
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT