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

Filing 334

AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION. (Timken, A)

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,

AMENDED 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 Protection Products, Inc. (“Guardian”) and RPM
Wood Finishes Group, Inc. (“RPM”) on:
(1) Plaintiff G.P.P., Inc. d/b/a Guardian Innovative Solution
(“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;
(2) GIS’s Fifth Cause of Action;
(3) GIS’s Seventh Cause of Action, insofar as this claim
relates to the parties’ Agreements other than the 2015
Form Agreement, as discussed in the Court’s January 18,
2017, order (Doc. 133); and
(4) `GIS’s Ninth Cause of Action;
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JURY VERDICT RENDERED ON JUNE 29, 2017,
AND THE COURT’S ORDERS, JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN FAVOR OF
Guardian on:
(1) GIS’s First Cause of Action;
(2) GIS’s Second Cause of Action;
(3) GIS’s Eighth Cause of Action; and
(4) 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,
JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN FAVOR OF RPM on GIS’s Tenth Cause of
Action.
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)

(4)

(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)

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”;
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”;
Second Counterclaim;
Third Counterclaim;
Fourth Counterclaim;
Fifth Counterclaim; and
Sixth Counterclaim.

The Court ORDERS that the following claims are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (See Doc. 30):
(1) GIS’s Sixth Cause of Action against Guardian, as alleged
in its Complaint filed February 27, 2015;
(2) GIS’s Seventh Cause of Action against Guardian, as alleged
in its Complaint filed February 27, 2015;
(3) GIS’s Eighth Cause of Action against Guardian, as alleged
in its Complaint filed February 27, 2015;
(4) GIS’s Ninth Cause of Action against Guardian, as alleged
in its Complaint filed February 27, 2015;
(5) GIS’s Tenth Cause of Action against Guardian, as alleged
in its Complaint filed February 27, 2015; and
(6) GIS’s Eleventh Cause of Action against Guardian, as
alleged in its Complaint filed February 27, 2015.
The Court ORDERS that the following claims are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for want of prosecution:
(1) GIS’s First Cause of Action against RPM;
(2) GIS’s Second Cause of Action against RPM;
(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
Pennsylvania, Alabama, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, and
Midwest Agreements;
(4) GIS’s Fourth Cause of Action;
(5) GIS’s Sixth Cause of Action; and
(6) 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); and
///
///
///
///

(7)

DATED:

GIS’s Eighth Cause of Action against RPM.

January 16, 2018
MARIANNE MATHERLY, Clerk
/S/ Alice Timken
By:
Deputy Clerk