Carson Industries, Inc. v. American Technology Network, Corp.

Filing 111

AMENDED ORDER DEFINING ISSUES TO BE TRIED AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON FURTHER TRIAL PREPARATION. Further Pretrial Conference set for 11/4/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 10/9/2015. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

CARSON INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 14-cv-01769-NC

v.

AMENDED ORDER DEFINING
ISSUES TO BE TRIED AND

13
14

AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

15

NETWORK, CORP.,

ON FURTHER TRIAL

Defendant.

16

PREPARATION

17
18

After the pretrial conference held on October 7, 2015, this order further refines the

19

claims and evidence that will be presented to the jury in this case. The trial has been

20

continued to November 16.

21

1.

AMENDED ISSUES TO BE TRIED

22

This case presents a dispute between two parties, Carson Industries Inc. and

23

American Technology Network Corp., over the sale of night vision goggle kits. Carson

24

sold night vision goggle kits to ATN. Carson shipped 880 goggle kits to ATN in

25

December 2010. The price of the kits was $599.45 per unit. The parties agree that ATN

26

paid $50,000 for the goggle kits. ATN returned parts of some of the goggle kits to Carson,

27

asserting that the goggles were defective. Here is the dispute.

28

First, there is a dispute about the number of kits that ATN returned to Carson.
Case No. 14-cv-01769-NC

1

Carson claims that ATN returned parts of 327 kits to Carson. ATN claims that it returned

2

parts of 419 kits to Carson. Second, there is a dispute over the value of the parts of the kits

3

that ATN returned and did not return to Carson. Carson credited $75,778.98 to ATN for

4

the parts of the returned kits. As to the 327 goggle kits it says ATN returned, Carson

5

claims that ATN still owes $120,241.17 [$196,020.15 minus $75,778.98].

6

Therefore, the total contract damages that Carson seeks from ATN is $120,241.17.

7

On the other hand, ATN denies that it owes Carson any money for the partially

8

returned goggle kits. ATN has filed a counterclaim against Carson. First, ATN asserts

9

that the goods provided by Carson were defective, so Carson breached the contracts and its
warranty and is not entitled to payment from ATN on the kits ATN returned. Second,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

ATN claims that it is entitled to damages from Carson of $280,000 as an offset. ATN’s

12

asserted damages are $50,000 that it paid to Carson for allegedly defective goods and

13

$230,000 (920 units at a rate of $250 per unit) for losses ATN claims it suffered in

14

repairing the defective goggle kits. Carson denies that ATN is entitled to any damages as

15

an offset.

16

2.

17

In the Court’s ruling on Carson’s motion for summary judgment, the Court held in

LEAVE TO FILE FURTHER BRIEFING

18

part that ATN’s “defenses and counterclaims as to the 463 kits and 10 lenses fail as a

19

matter of law because ATN did not give Carson notice of breach.” Dkt. No. 81 at 9. The

20

summary judgment order, however, did not entirely extend to the cost of repair of 920

21

units that it is now apparent that ATN is seeking to affirmatively recover at trial.

22

Accordingly, by October 16, 2015, Carson may file a supplemental summary judgment

23

motion that addresses ATN’s claim for repair of 920 units. ATN may respond by October

24

23. Carson may reply by October 27.

25

Separately, by October 23 ATN must identify the evidence (expected witness

26

testimony and proposed trial exhibits) that support the proposition that it returned 419

27

(rather than 327) goggle units to Carson. This will assist the Court in organizing the

28

evidence and issues to be heard at trial.
Case No. 14-cv-01769-NC

2

1
2

A further pretrial conference will take place November 4, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.,
courtroom D, San Francisco.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: October 9, 2015

7

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 14-cv-01769-NC

3