Beckman Coulter Inc. v. Dovatron International Inc., Flextronics International Ltd., et al.
Published: Dec. 9, 2003 | Result Date: Sep. 24, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 01CC08395 Verdict – $934,419,000
Judge
Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Marc P. Miles
(Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP)
Daniel J. Callahan
(Callahan & Blaine)
Brian J. McCormack
(Callahan & Blaine APLC)
Defendant
Scott J. Ferrell
(Pacific Trial Attorneys APC)
Experts
Plaintiff
Lee J. Pulver
(technical)
James M. Skorheim
(technical)
Defendant
John Alstadt
(technical)
Facts
Plaintiff Beckman Coulter Inc., headquartered in California, is a leading manufacturer of clinical diagnostic equipment. It contracted with defendant Dovatron International Inc. to which Dovatron was to manufacturer printed circuit boards for two of Beckman's laboratory instruments. The contract was to run from November 1997 through October 2002. On Aug. 31, 1998, the defendant allegedly demanded that plaintiff pay a $300,000 surcharge to compensate it for alleged schedule adjustments and increased cost of component parts to defendants. The plaintiff argued that the surcharge was not called for in the contract. The defendant threatened to cease production unless the plaintiff yielded to the demand. The plaintiff later discovered that it had been overcharged $355,212, in addition to the $300,000 it paid under duress, a fact that defendants concealed. In April 2000, the defendant Flextronics International acquired Dovatron. The next month, Flextronics notified the plaintiff that it was closing its California manufacturing facility. As a result, the plaintiff was forced to bring the manufacturing of its circuit boards in-house, incurring damages of $2,144,785. After the defendants' repudiation of the contract on May 30, 2000, the defendants refused to release critical component parts to the plaintiff unless it agreed to purchase excess unwanted inventory and components from them. Defendant Flextronics conveyed an ultimatum which stated that its offer to release component parts to the plaintiff was an "as is, all or nothing offer" and that unless accepted, the defendants intended to destroy the irreplaceable component parts in five days.
Settlement Discussions
The parties engaged in one day of mediation before Hon. Robert Thomas of JAMS in May 2003. The case did not settle. Settlement discussions are confidential.
Damages
The plaintiff sought $2,144,785 for the damages it sustained as a result of the defendants' breach of contract; $355,000 for fraud and $498,000 for two acts of economic duress. In addition, the plaintiff sought punitive damages for defendants' malicious conduct. The defendants stipulated that they could pay any punitive damage award permitted by law.
Result
The jury found the defendants liable under all causes of action. It awarded $934,419,108, including $931,420,848 in punitive damages. The court stayed enforcement of the judgment pending post-trial motions. The court also issued an injunction prohibiting Flextronics from transferring assets out of the U.S., other than in the normal course of business.
Deliberation
three days
Poll
12-0 (breach of contract), 11-1 (fraud/concealment), 10-2 (economic duress 1), 12-0 (economic duress 2)
Length
10 weeks
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390