-DTB Out of the Box Enterprises LLC v. El Paseo Jewelry Exchange Inc et al, No. 5:2010cv01858 - Document 264 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: (see document image for further details). 5. Judgment is hereby entered, in favor of Defendants onOut of the Boxs claim for violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17500, et seq.; 6. Ou t of the Box shall be entitled to recover from Defendants the amount of $1,500,000 for Out of the Boxs lost profits as a result of Defendants' false advertising. Enhancement of this award is denied.7. Out of the Box shall be entitled to rec over from Defendants the amount of $880,355 in disgorgement of El Paseos profits earned as a result of the Defendants' false advertising. 8. Defendants El Paseo Jewelry Exchange Inc, El Paseo Jewelry Inc, Raju Mehta, and Ivan Kalensky are jointly and severally liable for the entire judgment. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (ad)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-DTB Out of the Box Enterprises LLC v. El Paseo Jewelry Exchange Inc et al Doc. 264 1 2 3 JS-6 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ) 11 OUT OF THE BOX ) ENTERPRISES, LLC, A 12 TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY ) ) COMPANY, ) 13 Plaintiff, ) ) 14 ) v. ) 15 ) EL PASEO JEWELRY 16 EXCHANGE, INC., A NEVADA ) ) CORPORATION; EL PASEO ) 17 JEWELRY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; ) ) 18 RAJU MEHTA, AN ) INDIVIDUAL; IVAN 19 KALENSKY, AN INDIVIDUAL, ) ) Defendants. ) 20 ________________________ ) 21 Case No. EDCV 10-01858 VAP(DTBx) FINAL JUDGMENT 22 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 23 This action came on regularly for trial on July 11, 24 2012, in Courtroom 2 of the above entitled Court, the 25 Honorable Virginia A. Phillips, United States District 26 Judge presiding. Plaintiff Out of the Box Enterprises, 27 LLC appeared by its attorneys Lawrence B. Steinberg and 28 Janet R. Nalbandyan of the law firm Buchalter Nember and Dockets.Justia.com 1 Defendants El Paseo Jewelry Exchange, Inc., El Paseo 2 Jewelry, Inc., Raju Mehta and Ivan Kalensky appeared by 3 their attorneys, Daryl M. Crone, Gerald E. Hawxhurst and 4 Joshua P. Gelbart of the law firm Crone Hawxhurst LLP. 5 6 A jury of eight persons was regularly impaneled and 7 sworn to try the action. Witnesses were sworn and 8 testified. 9 10 On July 24, 2012, after hearing the evidence, the 11 arguments of counsel and the instructions given to the 12 jury, the jury retired to consider its verdict, and on 13 July 25, 2012, returned its special verdict by way of 14 answers to the questions propounded to it, as follows: 15 16 Question No. 1: Did Defendants advertise falsely by 17 claiming that they would pay 92 percent of the spot 18 market price for gold jewelry, and by failing to do so? 19 20 Answer: YES 21 22 (If “YES,” please proceed to Question No. 2; if “No,” 23 please sign and date this form and inform the bailiff 24 that you have completed your deliberations.) 25 26 27 28 2 1 Question No. 2: Were Defendants’ false advertisements 2 that they would pay 92 percent of the spot market price 3 for gold jewelry intentionally false? 4 5 Answer: YES 6 7 (Please proceed to Question No. 3.) 8 9 Question No. 3: Did Defendants prove that their false 10 advertisement that they would pay 92 percent of the spot 11 market price of gold jewelry did not actually deceive or 12 have a tendency to deceive any customers? 13 14 Answer: NO 15 16 (If “Yes,” please sign and date this form and inform 17 the bailiff that you have completed your deliberations; 18 if “No,” please proceed to Question No. 4.) 19 20 Question No. 4: Was Defendants’ false advertisement 21 that they would pay 92 percent of the spot market price 22 for gold jewelry “material,” in that it was likely to 23 influence the sales decisions of customers who sold their 24 gold jewelry to Defendants? 25 26 Answer: YES 27 28 3 1 (If “Yes,” please continue to Question No. 5; if 2 “No,” please sign and date this form and inform the 3 bailiff that you have completed your deliberations.) 4 5 Question No. 5: Did Defendants’ false advertisement 6 that they would pay 92 percent of the spot market price 7 for gold jewelry cause Plaintiff injury in the form of 8 lost sales to Defendants or loss of good will? 9 10 Answer: YES 11 12 Phase II commenced with a jury trial on July 25, 13 2012. On July 26, 2012, after hearing the evidence, the 14 arguments of counsel and the instructions given to the 15 jury, the jury retired to consider its verdict, and 16 returned its special verdict by way of answers to the 17 questions propounded to it, as follows: 18 19 Question No. 1: What amount of profits did Plaintiff 20 lose as a result of the false advertising? 21 22 Answer: $1,500,000.00 23 24 (Please proceed to Question No. 2.) 25 26 Question No. 2: What amount of profits did Defendants 27 warn as a result of the false advertising? 28 4 1 Answer: $880,355.00 2 3 On October 3, 2012, the Court filed its Order: (1) 4 denying enhancement of the $1,500,000 lost profits award; 5 (2) finding equitable the jury’s advisory award of 6 $880,355 in profits El Paseo earned; (3) finding 7 defendants Raju Mehta and Ivan Kalensky jointly and 8 severally liable with the other defendants for the entire 9 judgment; (4) denying injunctive relief for Out of the 10 Box; (5) denying restitution for Out of the Box; (6) 11 finding El Paseo was not entitled to prevail on its 12 unclean hands defense; and (7) denying attorney’s fees 13 for Out of the Box. 14 15 On February 8, 2012, the parties stipulated to 16 dismissal of El Paseo's counterclaims against Out of the 17 Box. 18 19 On May 11, 2012, the Court granted summary judgment 20 in favor of Defendants on Out of the Box's claim for 21 intentional interference with prospective economic 22 advantage. 23 24 By reason of the verdict and Orders described above, 25 26 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ADJUDGED, ORDERED AND DECREED THAT: 27 28 5 1 1. El Paseo's Counterclaims are dismissed with 2 prejudice; 3 2. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of El Paseo on 4 Out of the Box's claim for intentional interference 5 with prospective economic advantage; 6 3. Judgment is hereby entered, in favor of Out of the 7 Box against Defendants on Out of the Box’s claim for 8 violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); 9 4. Judgment is hereby entered, in favor of Out of the 10 Box against Defendants on Out of the Box’s claim for 11 violation of California Business and Professions Code 12 § 17200, et seq.; 13 5. Judgment is hereby entered, in favor of Defendants on 14 Out of the Box’s claim for violation of California 15 Business & Professions Code § 17500, et seq.; 16 6. Out of the Box shall be entitled to recover from 17 Defendants the amount of $1,500,000 for Out of the 18 Box’s lost profits as a result of Defendants' false 19 advertising. 20 7. Out of the Box shall be entitled to recover from 21 Defendants the amount of $880,355 in disgorgement of 22 El Paseo’s profits earned as a result of the 23 Defendants' false advertising. 24 8. Defendants El Paseo Jewelry Exchange, Inc., El Paseo 25 Jewelry, Inc., Raju Mehta, and Ivan Kalensky are 26 jointly and severally liable for the entire judgment. Enhancement of this award is denied. 27 28 6 1 9. Out of the Box’s request for injunctive relief 2 against El Paseo is denied. 3 10. Out of the Box’s request for restitution for amounts 4 El Paseo underpaid to Out of the Box’s investigators 5 for gold sales is denied. 6 11. El Paseo's affirmative defense of unclean hands to 7 Out of the Box’s Lanham Act claim is denied. 8 12. This is not an exceptional case within the meaning of 9 10 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)(3) warranting an award of attorney’s fees. 11 13. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter 12 to remedy any violation of the terms set forth 13 herein. 14 15 The Court orders that such judgment be entered. 16 17 18 Dated: October 30, 2012 VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
