Trendsettah USA, Inc. et al vs- Swisher International Inc

Filing 296

JUDGMENT by Judge James V. Selna: The Court NOW ENTERS JUDGMENT AS FOLLOWS: Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant on Plaintiffsclaims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fairdealing in the amount of $9,062,679.00 plus prejudgment interest if and to the extent ordered by the Court. See document for further information. (lwag)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

THEODORE J. BOUTROUS JR.,
SBN 132099
[e-mail]
DANIEL G. SWANSON,
SBN 116556
[e-mail]
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
CYNTHIA E. RICHMAN
(admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5306
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 202.530.9691

12

JS-6
MICHAEL C. MARSH
(admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
RYAN ROMAN
(admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
AKERMAN LLP
One Southeast Third Avenue, 25th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 305.374.5095

13
14
15

Attorneys for Swisher International, Inc.

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17
18
19

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TRENDSETTAH USA, INC. and
TRENDSETTAH, INC.,
Plaintiffs,

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

v.
SWISHER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant.

CASE NO. 8:14-cv-01664-JVS-DFM
JUDGMENT

1

On April 3, 2016, Defendant Swisher International, Inc. (“Defendant”) moved

2

for judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiffs Trendsettah USA, Inc. and Trend Settah,

3

Inc.’s (“Plaintiffs”) claims for negligent interference with prospective economic

4

relations and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.

5

Code § 17200 et seq., among other claims. Dkt. Nos. 33, 35.

6

On May 19, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s

7

motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for negligent

8

interference with prospective economic relations and violation of California’s Unfair

9

Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. Dkt. No. 40.

10

On December 21, 2015, Defendant moved for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’

11

claims for violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2; violation of the

12

Florida Antitrust Law, Fla. Stat. § 542.19; trade libel; tortious interference with

13

contract; and intentional interference with prospective economic relations. Dkt. Nos.

14

67, 93.

15

On January 21, 2016, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s

16

motion for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs’

17

claims for trade libel, tortious interference with contract, and intentional interference

18

with prospective economic relations. The Court denied summary judgment on

19

Plaintiffs’ claims for violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, and

20

violation of the Florida Antitrust Law, Fla. Stat. § 542.19. Dkt. No. 99.

21

On February 1, 2016, Plaintiffs abandoned their claim for violation of the

22

Florida Antitrust Law, Fla. Stat. § 542.19, in their Memorandum of Contentions of

23

Fact and Law pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-4.6. Dkt. No. 133, at 13.

24

On February 24, 2016, this Court entered the Final Pretrial Conference Order

25

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. Dkt. No. 162. The Final Pretrial Conference Order did

26

not include Plaintiffs’ claim for violation of the Florida Antitrust Law, Fla. Stat.

27

§ 542.19, and stated that it “shall supersede the pleadings.” Dkt. No. 162, at 32-33.

28
1

1

This action came on for trial on March 15, 2016, in Courtroom 10C of the

2

above-entitled Court, the Honorable James V. Selna, United States District Judge, pre-

3

siding. A jury of seven persons was impaneled and sworn to try the action. After an

4

eight-day trial and after deliberations, on March 30, 2016, the jury returned a Special

5

Verdict in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant on each of the four causes of ac-

6

tion tried: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair

7

dealing; (3) violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act by creating or maintaining a mo-

8

nopoly through anti-competitive practices; and (4) violation of Section 2 of the Sher-

9

man Act by attempting to create or maintain a monopoly through anti-competitive

10

practices. On Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of

11

good faith and fair dealing, the jury awarded $9,062,679.00. On Plaintiffs’ claims for

12

monopoly and attempted monopoly under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the jury

13

awarded $14,815,494.00. Dkt. No. 206.

14

Swisher moved for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new

15

trial, on May 12, 2016. Dkt. No. 233. On August 17, 2016, the Court granted judg-

16

ment in favor of Defendant, and in the alternative, a new trial, on Plaintiffs’ cause of

17

action for violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act by creating or maintaining a mo-

18

nopoly through anti-competitive practices. The Court granted a new trial on Plaintiffs’

19

cause of action for violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act by attempting to create or

20

maintain a monopoly through anti-competitive practices. Dkt. No. 262.

21

On October 10, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the

22

Court’s August 17, 2016 order denying in part Defendant’s motion for judgment as a

23

matter of law on Plaintiffs’ Section 2 claims, and for reconsideration of the Court’s

24

January 21, 2016 order denying summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Section 2 and

25

Florida antitrust claims. Dkt. No. 268. On November 9, 2016, the Court granted

26

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s January 21, 2016 order denying

27

summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims. The Court granted summary

28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

2

1

judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims for the reasons set forth

2

in its order of November 9, 2016. Dkt. No. 274.

3

The Court NOW ENTERS JUDGMENT AS FOLLOWS:

4

1.

Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant on Plain-

5

tiffs’ claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair

6

dealing in the amount of $9,062,679.00 plus prejudgment interest if and to the extent

7

ordered by the Court.

8
9
10
11

2.

Plaintiffs shall recover post-judgment interest on the judgment on their

claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
3.

Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs on all of

12

Plaintiffs’ other claims, including Plaintiffs’ claims for violation of Section 2 of the

13

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2; violation of the Florida Antitrust Law, Fla. Stat. § 542.19;

14

trade libel; tortious interference with contract; intentional interference with prospective

15

economic relations; negligent interference with prospective economic relations; and vi-

16

olation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code § 17200.

17
18
19

4.

Costs and reasonable attorney fees shall be recovered to the extent or-

dered by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: December 14, 2016

22

Hon. James V. Selna
United States District Court Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

3