G.P.P., Inc. v. Guardian Protection Products, Inc.

Filing 311

FINAL JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
FILED JUDGMENT ENTERED __________________ Date by __________A. Timken_________ Deputy Clerk U.S. District Court Eastern District of California __XX___ FILE CLOSED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA G.P.P., Inc. d/b/a Guardian Innovative Solutions, Plaintiff, FINAL JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION vs. 1:15-cv-00321 SKO Guardian Protection Products, Inc. and RPM Wood Finishes Group, Inc., Defendants. _______________________________/ Guardian Protection Products, Inc., Counterclaimant, vs. G.P.P., Inc. d/b/a Guardian Innovative Solutions, Counter-defendant. _______________________________/ IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JURY VERDICT RENDERED ON JUNE 29, 2017, AND THE COURT’S ORDERS, JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN FAVOR OF Defendants Guardian Protective Products, Inc. (“Guardian”) and RPM Wood Finishes Group, Inc. on: (1) Plaintiff G.P.P., Inc. d/b/a Guardian Innovative Solution (“GIS”)’s First Cause of Action; (2) GIS’s Section Cause of Action; (3) GIS’s Third Cause of Action, insofar as GIS alleged in this claim that Guardian breached the Bob’s Discount Furniture Agreement by selling products to Bob’s Discount Furniture in the geographic areas covered by the Florida, Mid-Atlantic, and Cook County Agreements; (4) GIS’s Fifth Cause of Action; (5) GIS’s Seventh Cause of Action, insofar as this claim relates to the parties’ Agreements; (6) GIS’s Eighth Cause of Action; (7) GIS’s Ninth Cause of Action; (8) GIS’s Tenth Cause of Action; and (9) Guardian’s First Counterclaim, insofar as Guardian requested declaratory relief regarding “[w]hether the [electronic] furniture protection plans qualify as a Guardian Product within the scope of the rights granted by the” Florida, Mid-Atlantic, and Cook County Agreements. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JURY VERDICT RENDERED ON JUNE 29, 2017, AND THE COURT’S ORDERS, JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN FAVOR OF GIS on Guardian’s: (1) First Counterclaim, insofar as Guardian requested declaratory relief regarding “[w]hether Guardian is entitled to immediately terminate the Distributor Agreements due to GIS’s breaches of their express and implied terms”; (2) First Counterclaim, insofar as Guardian requested declaratory relief regarding “[w]hether the [electronic] furniture protection plans qualify as a Guardian Product within the scope of the rights granted by the” Pennsylvania, Alabama, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, and Midwest Agreements; (3) First Counterclaim, insofar as Guardian requested declaratory relief regarding “whether Guardian may establish a purchase quota for the [electronic] furniture protection plans above that applicable to the Original Products”; (4) First Counterclaim, insofar as Guardian requested declaratory relief regarding “[w]hether GIS has used its best efforts to promote the sale of Guardian Products in the exclusive distribution territories established by the Distributor Agreements”; (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Second Counterclaim; Third Counterclaim; Fourth Counterclaim; Fifth Counterclaim; and Sixth Counterclaim. The Court ORDERS that the following claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution: (1) GIS’s Third Cause of Action, insofar as GIS alleged in this claim that Guardian breached the Bob’s Discount Furniture Agreement by selling products to Bob’s Discount Furniture in the geographic areas covered by the Pennsylvania, Alabama, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, and Midwest Agreements; (2) GIS’s Fourth Cause of Action; (3) GIS’s Sixth Cause of Action; and (4) GIS’s Seventh Cause of Action, insofar as this claim relates to the 2015 Form Agreement, as discussed in the Court’s January 18, 2017 order (Doc. 133). DATED: 10/3/2017 MARIANNE MATHERLY, Clerk /S/ Alice Timken By: Deputy Clerk

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?