Sea Hawk Seafoods Inc. v. Kirin International Trading Inc.
Published: Apr. 5, 2005 | Result Date: Mar. 1, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: CV028388 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
USDC Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Kevin P. Sullivan
(Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance LLP)
Defendant
Alan I. White
(Law Office of Alan I. White)
Experts
Plaintiff
David Forbush
(technical)
Defendant
Steven E. Hughes
(technical)
Facts
The plaintiff claimed that it had entered into an oral contract with the defendant for the defendant to purchase the output of the plaintiff's production of pink Ikura salmon during the 2002 Alaskan fishing season, up to 200 metric tons. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant breached the oral contract by refusing to purchase the salmon, and the plaintiff was forced to liquidate the pink Ikura at below market prices. The plaintiff claimed that it was in financial distress and that because it was not paid a fair market price by the defendant, it not only liquidated the pink Ikura but was forced out of business and could not open its processing plant for the 2004 salmon season. The plaintiff operated in the 2003 season but only because the State of Alaska placed certain limited rules for salmon processing during that year due to the magnitude of the salmon run, but those rules did not exist in 2004.
Damages
The plaintiff asked the jury for damages in excess of $5 million, plus punitive damages if fraud was proven.
Result
The jury found there was no oral contract, and no fraud, intentional or negligent.
Other Information
This was the second trial in the case. In the first trial, the plaintiff was awarded approximately $500,000 in damages, but the defendant's motion for new trial was granted after it became apparent that the jury instructions and special verdict form were ambiguous, and the court could not determine the actual amount of total damages the jury intended to award. The court also granted the plaintiff's motion for new trial on the issue of its ability to have the jury decide the issue of punitive damages. The plaintiff believes that the verdict in the second trial is against the weight of the evidence and intends to make a motion for new trial.
Deliberation
2.5 days
Poll
9-0
Length
11 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390