The Sherwin-Williams Company v. JB Collision Services, Inc. et al

Filing 325

ORDER denying 316 Motion for New Trial on Damages and denying 317 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Sherwin-Williams' motion to further reduce the Body Shop Defendants' damages award is denied. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 9/19/16. (kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
COMPANY,

CASE NO. 13cv1946-LAB (WVG)

12

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL ON DAMAGES (DOC. NO. 316)
AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
MATTER OF LAW (DOC. NO. 317)

Plaintiff,
13
14

vs.
JB COLLISION SERVICES, INC. et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

The Court granted in part and denied in part Sherwin-Williams’ motion for a judgment

19

as a matter of law, reducing the damages award on the Body Shop Defendants’ claims to

20

$634,357.07.

21

evidence was insufficient as a matter of law. (Id. at 15–17.) So the Court calculated their

22

maximum possible damages by adding $106,357.07 in damages for unpaid warranty claims,

23

$320,000 attributable to 100 alleged vehicle “re-dos” (i.e., vehicles that allegedly needed to

24

be repainted due to problems with Sherwin-Williams’ paint), and $208,000 attributable to 65

25

vehicles that were allegedly waiting in the queue to be repaired. (Id. at 17.) The Body Shop

26

Defendants now move for a new trial on damages. (Docket no. 316.) And Sherwin-Williams

27

moves to further reduce the Body Shop Defendants’ damages award, arguing that the Court

28

shouldn’t have included the re-dos in calculating damages. (Docket no. 317.)

(Docket no. 311.)

The Body Shop Defendants’ prospective damages

-1-

13cv1946

1

The Body Shop Defendants’ Motion for a New Trial on Damages

2

The Body Shop Defendants’ motion for a new trial on damages (Docket no. 316) is

3

DENIED for the reasons stated in the order on Sherwin-Williams’ motion for a judgment as

4

a matter of law. (Docket no. 311.) Central Office Telephone, Inc. v. American Telephone

5

& Telegraph Co., 108 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 1997) holds that a court doesn’t need to offer the

6

option of a new trial when damages are reduced pursuant to a judgment as a matter of law.

7

Id. at 993 (reversed on other grounds). And the Body Shop Defendants’ prospective

8

damages evidence is legally insufficient under Behr v. Redmond, 193 Cal. App. 4th 517, 533

9

(2011) and Green Wood Indus. Co. v. Forceman Int’l Dev. Grp., Inc., 156 Cal. App. 4th 766,

10

778 (2007). Indeed, if the Court held a second trial, and the jury awarded the Body Shop

11

Defendants more than $634,357.07, the recovery would just be reduced again pursuant to

12

Behr and Green Wood.1

13

Sherwin-Williams’ Motion to Reduce the Body Shop Defendants’ Award

14

Sherwin-Williams contends that the Court erred by including costs associated with

15

alleged re-dos when calculating the Body Shop Defendants’ damages. (Docket no. 317.)

16

They argue that it isn’t fair for the Body Shop Defendants to recover these damages because

17

they affirmed during discovery and in pretrial motions that they were “not seek[ing] damages

18

for the undocumented, previously performed re-dos that took place.” (Id. (citing Docket nos.

19

45 at 7 and 223 at 2).) This motion poses a tough question; Sherwin-Williams may have

20

justifiably relied on the Body Shop Defendants’ representations that they weren’t seeking

21

damages related to the re-dos. But there was sufficient trial evidence to establish that the

22

Body Shop Defendants suffered damages as a result of re-dos. And the Court has an

23

obligation when reducing a damages award under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 to award the maximum

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

1

The Court in its judgment as a matter of law order (and Sherwin-Williams in its
briefing) relied heavily on Green Wood. (See, e.g., Docket nos. 311 at 15 and 319 at 11.)
The Body Shop Defendants still haven’t attempted to distinguish it. Indeed, they don’t even
address it.
-2-

13cv1946

1

amount supported by the evidence in the record. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KgaA,

2

2004 WL 2284001, at *12 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2004). Sherwin-Williams’ motion to further

3

reduce the Body Shop Defendants’ damages award is DENIED.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 19, 2016

6
7

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

13cv1946