This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Gardening Management Systems

Gardensensor Inc., Plantsense Inc. v. Stanley Black & Decker Inc., Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc.

Published: Dec. 27, 2014 | Result Date: Nov. 6, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:12-cv-03922-NC Verdict –  Defense

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Joseph Hyland

Olga Fuentes Skinner

Andrew Glenn

Jason Takenouchi

Michael Bowen

Trevor J. Welch

Robyn Richards


Defendant

Lee Marshall

Max W. Gavron
(Diversity Law Group PC)

Kevin R. Crisp
(Lester & Cantrell, LLP)

Theodore C. Morris

Cristina A. Guido
(Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP)

Gregory W. Smith
(Law Offices of Gregory W. Smith LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Glenn Sheets
(technical)

Defendant

Karl Ehlert
(technical)

Facts

GardenSensor sued Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. for breach of contract.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that it entered a joint venture agreement with defendant, in which defendant agreed to rebrand, manufacture, and market plaintiff's "EasyBloom Plant Sensor" product. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant committed numerous breaches of the agreement, including failing to reasonably oversee the manufacturing process, failing to properly market the rebranded product, failing to spend certain required amounts in marketing placement funds, and failing to make certain royalty payments to plaintiff.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant denied the allegations of plaintiff's complaint.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff's demand was $24 million, including $19 million in damages plus $5 million in interest. Defendant's offer under FRCP 68 was $2,950,000 plus costs.

Damages

Plaintiff alleged damages of $25 million. Plaintiff asked the jury to award between $19 million and $20 million. Defendant denied wrongdoing and causation but suggested an appropriate verdict in the event of liability should be $385,000.

Result

After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant. The jury found that, although defendant failed to perform under the terms of the agreement, plaintiff failed to show that defendant's failure to perform caused harm to plaintiff.

Other Information

Punitive damages were stricken by the court, on motion by defendant under both Delaware law and an express contractual waiver of punitive damages. On motion by defendant, the court declined to enforce the contractual waiver of consequential damages and lost profits under its interpretation of Delaware law. Defendant removed the case to federal court.


#120417

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390