FINAL JUDGMENT FOLLOWING MANDATE FROM THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, Chief District Judge.

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

This action came on regularly for trial on July 11, 2012, in Courtroom 2 of the above entitled Court, the Honorable Virginia A. Phillips, United States District Judge presiding. Plaintiff Out of the Box Enterprises, LLC ("Plaintiff" or "Out of the Box") appeared by its attorneys Lawrence B. Steinberg and Janet R. Nalbandyan of the law firm Buchalter Nember and Defendants El Paseo Jewelry Exchange, Inc., El Paseo Jewelry, Inc., Raju Mehta and Ivan Kalensky (collectively, "Defendants") appeared by their attorneys, Daryl M. Crone, Gerald E. Hawxhurst and Joshua P. Gelbart of the law firm Crone Hawxhurst LLP. On July 20, 2012, Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. (Doc. No. 189.) On July 23, 2012, the Court denied Defendants' Motion. (Doc. No. 201.)

On July 25, 2012, the jury returned a special verdict. (Doc. No. 220.) On July 26, 2012, the second phase of the trial commenced regarding damages; the same day, the jury returned its Phase II verdict. (Doc. No. 221.) In accordance with the jury's special verdict, on October 30, 2012, the Court entered Final Judgment against Defendants on Plaintiff's claims for violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., and in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff's claim for violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17500, et seq. (Doc. No. 264.) In accordance with the jury's Phase II verdict, the Court awarded $1,500,000 to Plaintiff in lost profits and $880,355 in disgorgement of El Paseo's profits; Defendants El Paseo Jewelry Exchange, Inc., El Paseo Jewelry, Inc., Raju Mehta, and Ivan Kalensky were jointly and severally liable for the entire judgment.

On December 24, 2013, Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. No. 340.) On April 30, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed this Court's order denying Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law issued on July 20, 2012, finding that Plaintiff failed to introduce evidence sufficient to establish the existence and amount of its damages or permissible disgorgement. (See Doc. No. 375.)

Accordingly, the Court VACATES the Final Judgment issued on October 30, 2012 insofar as it pertains to Plaintiff's claims for violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.

Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit's decision, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ADJUDGED, ORDERED AND DECREED THAT:

1. Judgment is hereby entered, in favor of Defendants against Plaintiff on Plaintiff's claim for violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a); and

2. Judgment is hereby entered, in favor of Defendants against Plaintiff on Plaintiff's claim for violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.

The Court orders that such judgment be entered.