Out of the Box Enterprises LLC v. El Paseo Jewelry Exchange Inc et al, No. 5:2010cv01858 - Document 377 (C.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT FOLLOWING MANDATE FROM THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: 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 Plaintiffs 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. (bm)

Download PDF

Out of the Box Enterprises LLC v. El Paseo Jewelry Exchange Inc et al Doc. 377 1 2 3 JUN 1, 2018 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 OUT OF THE BOX ) ENTERPRISES, LLC, A ) 13 TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY ) COMPANY, ) 14 ) Plaintiff, ) 15 ) v. ) 16 ) EL PASEO JEWELRY ) 17 EXCHANGE, INC., A NEVADA ) CORPORATION; EL PASEO ) 18 JEWELRY, INC., A ) CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; ) 19 RAJU MEHTA, AN ) INDIVIDUAL; IVAN ) 20 KALENSKY, AN INDIVIDUAL, ) ) 21 Defendants. ) ________________________ ) 22 Case No. EDCV 10-01858 VAP(DTBx) FINAL JUDGMENT FOLLOWING MANDATE FROM THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 23 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 24 This action came on regularly for trial on July 11, 25 2012, in Courtroom 2 of the above entitled Court, the 26 Honorable Virginia A. Phillips, United States District 27 Judge presiding. Plaintiff Out of the Box Enterprises, 28 LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Out of the Box”) appeared by its Dockets.Justia.com 1 attorneys Lawrence B. Steinberg and Janet R. Nalbandyan 2 of the law firm Buchalter Nember and Defendants El Paseo 3 Jewelry Exchange, Inc., El Paseo Jewelry, Inc., Raju 4 Mehta and Ivan Kalensky (collectively, “Defendants”) 5 appeared by their attorneys, Daryl M. Crone, Gerald E. 6 Hawxhurst and Joshua P. Gelbart of the law firm Crone 7 Hawxhurst LLP. On July 20, 2012, Defendants moved for 8 judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of 9 Civil Procedure 50. (Doc. No. 189.) 10 the Court denied Defendants’ Motion. On July 23, 2012, (Doc. No. 201.) 11 12 On July 25, 2012, the jury returned a special 13 verdict. (Doc. No. 220.) On July 26, 2012, the second 14 phase of the trial commenced regarding damages; the same 15 day, the jury returned its Phase II verdict. 16 221.) (Doc. No. In accordance with the jury’s special verdict, on 17 October 30, 2012, the Court entered Final Judgment 18 against Defendants on Plaintiff’s claims for violation of 19 the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and California 20 Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., and in 21 favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s claim for violation of 22 California Business & Professions Code § 17500, et seq. 23 (Doc. No. 264.) In accordance with the jury’s Phase II 24 verdict, the Court awarded $1,500,000 to Plaintiff in 25 lost profits and $880,355 in disgorgement of El Paseo’s 26 profits; Defendants El Paseo Jewelry Exchange, Inc., El 27 28 2 1 Paseo Jewelry, Inc., Raju Mehta, and Ivan Kalensky were 2 jointly and severally liable for the entire judgment. 3 4 On December 24, 2013, Defendants filed a Notice of 5 Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. No. 340.) On April 6 30, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed this Court’s order 7 denying Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of 8 law issued on July 20, 2012, finding that Plaintiff 9 failed to introduce evidence sufficient to establish the 10 existence and amount of its damages or permissible 11 disgorgement. (See Doc. No. 375.) 12 13 Accordingly, the Court VACATES the Final Judgment 14 issued on October 30, 2012 insofar as it pertains to 15 Plaintiff’s claims for violations of the Lanham Act, 15 16 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and California Business and Professions 17 Code § 17200, et seq. 18 19 Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s decision, NOW, 20 THEREFORE, IT IS ADJUDGED, ORDERED AND DECREED THAT: 21 22 1. Judgment is hereby entered, in favor of Defendants 23 against Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s claim for violation 24 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); and 25 2. Judgment is hereby entered, in favor of Defendants 26 against Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s claim for violation 27 28 3 1 of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, 2 et seq. 3 4 The Court orders that such judgment be entered. 5 6 7 Dated: June 1, 2018 8 VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS Chief United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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.