Deutsch Hollandische Tabakgesellschaft mBH & Co., KG v. Trendsettah USA, Inc.

Filing 125

JUDGMENT by Judge David O. Carter. A jury of eight persons was impaneled and sworn to try the action. After a three-day trial and after deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Trend Settah, Inc. and against DHT, on each of Trend Setta h, Inc.'s causes of action tried: (1) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and (2) breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The jury returned a verdict awarding Trend Settah, Inc. an undifferentiated &# 036;3,060,250.00 on those claims. The contents of the jury's verdict, which was filed on June 7, 2018, are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. (ECF No. 114 .) The Court NOW ENTERS JUDGMENT AS FOLLOWS: 1. Judgment is e ntered in favor of DHT and against Trend Settah, Inc., and Trendsettah USA, Inc., jointly and severally, on DHT's claim for breach of contract in the amount of $484,772.30; 2. All remaining claims and grounds for relief asserted in DHT's Counts One and Two are dismissed as moot; (see document for details). (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (dro)

8

MARK POE (S.B. #223714)
[e-mail]
RANDOLPH GAW (S.B. #223718)
[e-mail]
SAMUEL SONG (S.B. #245007)
[e-mail]
VICTOR MENG (S.B. #254102)
[e-mail]
GAW | POE LLP
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

9

Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaimants

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SOUTHERN DIVISION

13
14
15

DEUTSCH-HOLLANDISCHE
TABAKGESELLSCHAFT MBH &
CO., KG,

18

21

TRENDSETTAH USA, INC.
Defendant.
TRENDSETTAH USA, INC. and
TREND SETTAH, INC.

22
23
24
25
26
27

JUDGMENT

v.

19
20

Case No. 8:17-cv-00181-DOC(JDEx)

Plaintiff,

16
17

JS-6

Counter-claimants,
v.
DEUTSCH-HOLLANDISCHE
TABAKGESELLSCHAFT MBH &
CO. KG,
Counter-defendant.

28
-1-

JUDGMENT
8:17-CV-00181-DOC(JDEx)

1

On April 30, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff and

2

Counterclaim Defendant Deutsch-Hollandische Tabakgesellschaft mbH & Co.,

3

KG’s (“DHT’s”) motion for partial summary judgment. The Court granted

4

summary judgment as follows:

5

 in DHT’s favor on its claim for breach of contract against Trend Settah,
Inc.;

6
7

 in DHT’s favor as to Trend Settah, Inc. and Trendsettah USA, Inc.’s
counterclaim for breach of contract; and

8
9

 in DHT’s favor as to Trendsettah USA, Inc.’s counterclaims for breach of
implied warranties.

10
11

The Court denied partial summary judgment on Trend Settah, Inc.’s

12

counterclaims for breach of implied warranties, which proceeded to trial. (ECF

13

No. 62.)

14

On DHT’s claim for breach of contract against Trend Settah, Inc., the parties

15

stipulated that Trend Settah, Inc. is liable to DHT for $482,708.52, inclusive of

16

prejudgment interest accrued through April 23, 2018. (ECF No. 61.) The parties

17

stipulate that an additional $2,063.78 in prejudgment interest will have accrued

18

through June 18, 2018.

19

On June 4, 2018, this Court entered the Final Pretrial Conference Order

20

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. (ECF No. 106.) On DHT’s Counts One and Two

21

for breach of contract and quantum meruit, the Final Pretrial Conference Order

22

provided that “Trendsettah USA, Inc. and Trend Settah, Inc. stipulate that they are

23

alter egos of each other and jointly and severally liable for [DHT’s] judgment and

24

to entry of this judgment against them. It further provided “[u]pon entry of the

25

judgment the Court shall dismiss all remaining claims and grounds for relief that

26

are asserted in Counts One and Two as moot,” (id. at 7), and stated that it “shall

27

supersede the pleadings.” (Id. at 21.)

28
-2-

JUDGMENT
8:17-CV-00181-DOC(JDEx)

1

This action came on for trial on June 5, 2018, in Courtroom 9D of the above-

2

entitled Court, the Honorable David O. Carter, United States District Judge,

3

presiding. Trend Settah, Inc. appeared by its attorneys, Mark Poe, Randolph Gaw,

4

and Samuel Song of Gaw | Poe LLP, and DHT appeared by its attorneys, Patrick

5

Hanes and Justin Feinman of Williams Mullen, P.C.

6

A jury of eight persons was impaneled and sworn to try the action. After a

7

three-day trial and after deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Trend

8

Settah, Inc. and against DHT, on each of Trend Settah, Inc.’s causes of action tried:

9

(1) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and (2) breach of the

10

implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The jury returned a verdict

11

awarding Trend Settah, Inc. an undifferentiated $3,060,250.00 on those claims.

12

The contents of the jury’s verdict, which was filed on June 7, 2018, are hereby

13

incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. (ECF No. 114.)

14

The Court NOW ENTERS JUDGMENT AS FOLLOWS:

15

1.

Judgment is entered in favor of DHT and against Trend Settah, Inc.,

16

and Trendsettah USA, Inc., jointly and severally, on DHT’s claim for breach of

17

contract in the amount of $484,772.30;

18
19
20

2.

All remaining claims and grounds for relief asserted in DHT’s Counts

One and Two are dismissed as moot;
3.

Judgment is entered in favor of DHT and against Trend Settah, Inc.

21

and Trendsettah USA, Inc. on their counterclaim for breach of contract, and against

22

Trendsettah USA, Inc. on its counterclaims for breach of implied warranties;

23

4.

Judgment is entered in favor of Trend Settah, Inc. and against DHT on

24

Trend Settah, Inc.’s counterclaims for breach of the implied warranty of

25

merchantability and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular

26

purpose in the amount of $3,060,250.00, plus prejudgment interest to the extent

27

ordered by the Court, to be determined following Trend Settah, Inc.’s motion for

28

the same;
-3-

JUDGMENT
8:17-CV-00181-DOC(JDEx)

1
2
3

5.

Post-judgment interest shall run on these judgments in accordance

with 28 U.S.C. § 1961; and
6.

Costs shall be recovered to the extent ordered by the Court.

4
5

DATED:

June 19, 2018

6

_____________________________
DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

JUDGMENT
8:17-CV-00181-DOC(JDEx)