Luv N' Care, LTD. et al v. Royal King Infant Products Co., Ltd. et al
Filing
282
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER -. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 1/5/2016. (ch, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
LUV N’ CARE, LTD. and ADMAR
INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROYAL KING INFANT PRODUCTS CO.
LTD.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-461-JRG
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion to Amend the Court’s Findings filed by Defendant Royal
King Infant Products Co., Ltd. (“RK”). (Dkt. No. 240.) Plaintiffs Luv n’ Care Ltd. and Admar
International, Inc. (“LNC”) oppose the Motion. (Dkt. No. 251.)
Having reviewed the parties’ written submissions, and for the reasons stated below, the
Court finds that RK’s Motion should be DENIED as to amending the Court’s previous Order
(Dkt. No. 234), which found insufficient evidence for RK’s claim for fraud in the inducement
and its defense of equitable estoppel. The remaining liability and damages issues raised by RK’s
Motion are CARRIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
On June 22, 2009, the parties executed a settlement agreement to resolve a 2008
trademark case previously before this Court. (Dkt. No. 1-1, “Settlement Agreement”; Dkt. No.
192.)
On November 4, 2010, Plaintiff LNC filed the instant lawsuit against Defendant RK,
asserting claims of breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, and tortious interference with
existing and prospective contractual and business relations under Texas state law. (Dkt. No. 1.)
On August 27, 2012, RK brought counterclaims against LNC for (1) a declaratory
judgment of patent non-infringement and invalidity and (2) claims under Texas state law for
breach of contract and tortious interference. (Dkt. No. 61.)
On October 7, 2013, the Court granted RK’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on
LNC’s fraud in the inducement claim, holding that LNC’s claim was barred by the one-year
prescriptive period under La. Civ. Code art. 3492. (Dkt. No. 192.)
On October 7–10, 2013, the Court held a jury trial in the present case on LNC’s claims
for breach of contract and intentional interference against RK, as well as RK’s claims for breach
of contract and intentional interference against LNC. (Dkt. No. 195.) In the parties’ Joint Final
Pretrial Order, RK agreed to have its fraud in the inducement claim decided by the Court, to
which LNC failed to timely object. See (Dkt. No. 158 at 16); (Dkt. No. 213 at 2–3).
On December 4, 2013, the Court held a bench trial to hear evidence presented on RK’s
fraud in the inducement claim. See (Dkt. No. 213). The Court also heard arguments relating to
RK’s equitable estoppel defense. See (Dkt. No. 213 at 3–4); (Dkt. No. 198 at 1).
On February 14, 2014, this Court entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
relating to RK’s fraud in the inducement claim and equitable estoppel defense. (Dkt. No. 234
(“Memorandum Opinion”).) This Court found that RK had not demonstrated by a preponderance
of the evidence that LNC had fraudulently induced RK to enter into the Settlement Agreement,
or that LNC’s breach of contract claim should be barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
(Id.) Accordingly, judgment was entered in favor of LNC and against RK on RK’s fraudulent
inducement claim and equitable estoppel defense. (Id.)
RK moves, under Rule 52(b), the Court to amend its findings in the Memorandum
- 2 -
Opinion denying RK’s claim for fraud in the inducement and RK’s affirmative defense of
equitable estoppel. (Dkt. No. 240.)
RK asserts that the Court should find additional facts which would support a finding that
RK had proven by a preponderance of the evidence its claim for fraud in the inducement and its
defense of equitable estoppel. See (Dkt. No. 240).
II.
APPLICABLE LAW
The purpose of a motion to amend is to correct “manifest errors of law or fact” or, in
some limited situations, to present newly discovered evidence. Fontenot v. Mesa Petroleum Co.,
791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986). Further, under Rule 52(b), rulings on motions to amend
findings are committed “to the sound discretion of the district court.” U.S. v. Texas, 572 F. Supp.
2d 726, 730 (E.D. Tex. 2008).
When a party seeks additional findings of fact following entry of summary judgment, the
Court construes the motion as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment. St.
Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Fair Grounds Corp., 123 F.3d 336, 338 (5th Cir. 1997); see also, e.g.,
Yoffe v. Keller Indus., Inc., 582 F.2d 982, 984, n.1 (5th Cir. 1978) (noting the equivalence of a
Rule 52(b) and a Rule 59(e) motion). Under Rule 59(e), the movant must prove that “(1) the
facts discovered are of such a nature that they would probably change the outcome; (2) the
alleged facts are actually newly discovered and could not have been discovered earlier by proper
diligence; and (3) the facts are not merely cumulative or impeaching.” Infusion Res., Inc. v.
Minimed, Inc., 351 F.3d 688, 696–97 (5th Cir. 2003).
III.
ANALYSIS
On February 14, 2014, this Court entered a memorandum opinion and order
memorializing its findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to RK’s fraud in the
- 3 -
inducement claim and equitable estoppel defense. (Memorandum Opinion.) RK moves the Court
to amend its findings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b). (Dkt. No. 240 at 14–27.) Specifically, RK
moves the Court to additionally find that:
i.
During the course of negotiations of the Settlement Agreement, the parties expressly
agreed that a product would be excluded from the Products included in the Settlement
Agreement even though it was not identified in the Settlement Agreement;
ii.
Mr. Hakim had made written statements that RK had listed all the products at issue;
iii.
Prior to the date of the Settlement Agreement, RK served discovery responses that
identified the documents depicting the Replacement Products;
iv.
Mr. Hakim admitted that his attorneys knew about the replacement products, and the
law imputes such knowledge to LNC;
v.
Mr. Hakim threatened Walgreen’s counsel that LNC would be filing more lawsuits on
RK products;
vi.
RK would not have entered into the Settlement Agreement if it had known that the
Agreement barred the sale of Replacement Products; and that
vii.
LNC’s failure to file suit within the Louisiana one-year prescriptive period is not
evidence of a lack of fraudulent intent.
If the Court should amend its findings of fact as suggested, then RK further moves the
Court to find for RK on its claims that (1) LNC fraudulently induced RK to enter into the
Settlement agreement, and (2) equitable estoppel bars LNC’s claim for breach of contract. (Dkt.
No. 240 at 23–27.)
The Court has considered RK’s arguments in support of its motion to amend the Court’s
findings. However, RK has not met its burden to show that the Court’s findings were manifestly
- 4 -
erroneous. The court relied on substantial evidence in support of its findings of fact. Further, this
Court previously considered the evidence identified by RK in its present motion in rendering its
Memorandum Opinion dated February 14, 2014, and (there as now) did not find that RK had
proven the additional facts proposed in the instant motion.
The Court concludes that there is no basis to amend its findings of fact as set forth in its
Memorandum Opinion. Consequently, there is also no basis for the Court to amend its
conclusions of law on RK’s fraud claim or its equitable estoppel defense.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that its findings of fact and conclusions of
law. in its Memorandum Opinion (Dkt. No. 234) are supported by adequate evidence, are not
manifestly erroneous, and should not be disturbed.
Accordingly, RK’s motion, pursuant to Rule 52(b), to amend the Court’s findings relating
to RK’s claim for fraud in the inducement and its defense of equitable estoppel should be and is
hereby DENIED. (Dkt. No. 240.) All other liability and damages issues raised in RK’s Motion
are CARRIED, to be addressed by the Court in a subsequent opinion.
SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 5th day of January, 2016.
____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
- 5 -
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?