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.

CONFIDENTIAL

May 10, 2005

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Breach of Implied Warranty

Confidential

Settlement –  $83,366

Judge

John F. Walter

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Michael A. Painter
(Isaacman, Kaufman & Painter)


Defendant

James M. Burgess
(Burgess Law Corporation)

Chad J. Levy


Experts

Plaintiff

Johnny Cmaidalka
(technical)

Thomas M. Neches
(technical)

Defendant

Bjorn Malmlund
(technical)

Jim Edmonds
(technical)

Facts

The plaintiff entity was formed in August 2002 for the purpose of manufacturing and selling electric scooters to the public. The plaintiff purchased lead-acid batteries from the defendant for use in its scooter. Customers who subsequently bought scooters from the plaintiff complained that the scooters did not work properly. The plaintiff went out of business because of these product returns.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff initially demanded $2 million. The defendant and counterclaimant responded by demanding full payment of its outstanding invoices in the amount of $84,000. After its damages expert was deposed, the plaintiff reduced its demand to $950,000. The defendant reduced its demand to approximately $59,000. Immediately prior to the deposition of its technical expert, the plaintiff reduced its demand to $450,000. The defendant offered a walk-away with mutual releases. During the deposition, the plaintiff reduced its demand to $250,000. The defendant made no further offer. After the deposition of another expert, the plaintiff offered a "walk away" with mutual releases.

Damages

The plaintiff initially claimed damages of in excess of $8 million. Subsequently, this was adjusted to a lower figure, $2.3 million. The defendant contended that its unpaid invoices totaled $83,365.89.

Result

The plaintiff's intentional and negligent misrepresentation claims were dismissed with prejudice on the defendant's motion to dismiss. As part of the parties' agreement, the plaintiff stipulated to the dismissal of the remainder of its complaint with prejudice and stipulated to entry of a judgment against it and in favor of the defendant and counter claimant in the full amount of the unpaid invoices totaling $83,365. The defendant did not pay any money to the plaintiff for this result. The judgment can only be collected if the plaintiff resumes operations.


#85638

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

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