Edu-Science (USA) Inc. v. Intubrite, LLC
Filing
203
SECOND AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT. Judgment entered in favor of IntuBrite on Edu-Science (USA) Inc's claim for breach of contract. Judgment entered in favor of Edu-Science (USA) Inc. on IntuBrite's counterclaim for breach of contract. Judgment entered in favor of Edu-Science (USA) Inc. on IntuBrite's counterclaim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Judgment entered in favor of Edu-Science (HK) Inc. on IntuBrite's counterclaim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Judgment entered in favor of Edu-Science (HK) on IntuBrite's counterclaim for breach of contract. Court's 199 Amended Judgment entered on 12/1/2015 is vacated. IntuBrite's 200 motion to amend the judgment is granted. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 4/5/2016. (jah)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
EDU-SCIENCE (USA) INC.,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
v.
Defendant.
INTUBRITE LLC,
17
18
19
20
SECOND AMENDED FINAL
JUDGMENT
INTUBRITE LLC,
15
16
Case No. 12-cv-1078-BAS-JLB
Counterclaimant,
v.
EDU-SCIENCE (USA) INC.; EDUSCIENCE (HK) LTD,
21
Counterdefendants.
22
AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS.
23
24
25
26
27
28
On August 26, 2015, after five days of trial, an impaneled jury of seven
persons returned a special verdict in the instant action. The jury found:
1. Defendant IntuBrite LLC (“IntuBrite”) was not liable to Plaintiff EduScience (USA) Inc. for breach of contract;
–1–
12cv1078
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2. Counterdefendant Edu-Science (USA) Inc. was liable to Counterclaimant
IntuBrite for breach of contract;
3. IntuBrite suffered $0 in damages as a result of Edu-Science (USA)’s
breach of contract;
4. Counterdefendant
Edu-Science
(HK)
Ltd.
was
not
liable
to
was
not
liable
to
Counterclaimant IntuBrite for breach of contract;
5. Counterdefendant
Edu-Science
(USA)
Inc.
8
Counterclaimant IntuBrite for breach of the implied warranty of
9
merchantability; and
10
6. Counterdefendant
Edu-Science
(HK)
Ltd.
was
not
liable
to
11
Counterclaimant IntuBrite for breach of the implied warranty of
12
merchantability.
13
In a judgment entered on Novermber 5, 2015, the Court entered judgment in
14
favor of IntuBrite on the latter’s breach of contract claim against Edu-Science
15
(USA), even though the jury found that IntuBrite suffered no damages. On
16
December 3, 2015, Edu-Science (USA) and Edu-Science (HK) (“Edu-Science
17
parties”) filed a motion to amend the judgment noting this mistake and requesting
18
that judgment be entered in favor of the Edu-Science parties on Intubrite’s
19
counterclaims. (ECF No. 195.) The Court entered an Amended Judgment on
20
December 11, 2015. (ECF No. 199.) On December 28, 2015, IntuBrite filed a motion
21
to amend the Amended Judgment requesting judgment be entered in favor of
22
IntuBrite on Edu-Science (USA) Inc.’s breach of contract claim. (ECF No. 200.) The
23
motion is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following:
24
25
26
27
28
(1) The Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in favor of IntuBrite on EduScience (USA) Inc.’s claim for breach of contract.
(2) The Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in favor of Edu-Science (USA)
Inc. on IntuBrite’s counterclaim for breach of contract.
(3) The Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in favor of Edu-Science (USA)
–2–
12cv1078
1
Inc. on IntuBrite’s counterclaim for breach of the implied warranty of
2
merchantability.
3
(4) The Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in favor of Edu-Science (HK) on
4
IntuBrite’s counterclaim for breach of the implied warranty of
5
merchantability.
6
7
(5) The Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in favor of Edu-Science (HK) on
Intubrite’s counterclaim for breach of contract.
8
The Court’s Amended Judgment entered on December 11, 2015 is hereby
9
VACATED. (ECF No. 199.) IntuBrite’s motion to amend the judgment is
10
GRANTED. (ECF No. 200.)
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
DATED: April 5, 2016
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–3–
12cv1078
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?