Filed: Feb. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Feb. 20, 2014
Summary: JUDGMENT GEORGE H. WU, District Judge. This case brought by Plaintiff L'Garde, Inc. ("L'Garde") against Defendant Raytheon Company ("Raytheon") 1 involves two causes of action, one for fraud and one for breach of contract. (Dkt. No. 1) On September 6, 2013, this Court granted Defendant Raytheon's Second Motion for Summary Judgment on L'Garde's second cause of action for fraud, on the basis that L'Garde could not have justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentations. ( See Dkt. No. 165 (
Summary: JUDGMENT GEORGE H. WU, District Judge. This case brought by Plaintiff L'Garde, Inc. ("L'Garde") against Defendant Raytheon Company ("Raytheon") 1 involves two causes of action, one for fraud and one for breach of contract. (Dkt. No. 1) On September 6, 2013, this Court granted Defendant Raytheon's Second Motion for Summary Judgment on L'Garde's second cause of action for fraud, on the basis that L'Garde could not have justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentations. ( See Dkt. No. 165 (t..
More
JUDGMENT
GEORGE H. WU, District Judge.
This case brought by Plaintiff L'Garde, Inc. ("L'Garde") against Defendant Raytheon Company ("Raytheon")1 involves two causes of action, one for fraud and one for breach of contract. (Dkt. No. 1)
On September 6, 2013, this Court granted Defendant Raytheon's Second Motion for Summary Judgment on L'Garde's second cause of action for fraud, on the basis that L'Garde could not have justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentations. (See Dkt. No. 165 (the "Order")).
In the Order, this Court also made findings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (g) and granted in part Raytheon's Second Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to L'Garde's first cause of action for breach of contract, "except as to the issue of Defendant's alleged failure to negotiate and the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing." (See Dkt. No. 165).
A jury trial in this matter came before this Court on January 28, 2014 on the two remaining contract claims. After receiving and hearing evidence from both parties, but before submitting the matter to the jury for deliberation, on February 4, 2014, this Court granted Raytheon's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law as to the two remaining contract claims. (See Dkt. No. 290). Specifically, the Court found that: (1) there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for L'Garde on its alleged failure to negotiate claim because L'Garde did not have any reliance damages as required under Copeland v. Baskin Robbins U.S.A., 96 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1260-1264 (2002), and Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., Case No. C 05-00334 RMW, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41026, at **123-125 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2009); and (2) there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for L'Garde on its claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because L'Garde did not allege or prove any acts by Raytheon which were precluded by the implied covenant, and therefore could not allege or prove any breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
The Court hereby enters judgment in favor of Defendant Raytheon Company and against Plaintiff L'Garde, Inc. on both causes of action and all claims thereunder. Plaintiff L'Garde, Inc. shall take nothing by its Complaint, which is dismissed with prejudice. Defendant Raytheon Company is entitled to recover its costs of suit, may submit an application to tax costs, and may seek attorneys' fees where appropriate.1
