Edu-Science (USA) Inc. v. Intubrite, LLC, No. 3:2012cv01078 - Document 203 (S.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: SECOND AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT. Judgment entered in favor of IntuBrite on Edu-Science (USA) Inc's claim for breach of contract. Judgment entered in favor of Edu-Science (USA) Inc. on IntuBrite's counterclaim for breach of contract. Judgment entered in favor of Edu-Science (USA) Inc. on IntuBrite's counterclaim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Judgment entered in favor of Edu-Science (HK) Inc. on IntuBrite's counterclaim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Judgment entered in favor of Edu-Science (HK) on IntuBrite's counterclaim for breach of contract. Court's 199 Amended Judgment entered on 12/1/2015 is vacated. IntuBrite's 200 motion to amend the judgment is granted. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 4/5/2016. (jah)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDU-SCIENCE (USA) INC., Plaintiff, 12 13 14 v. Defendant. INTUBRITE LLC, 17 18 19 20 SECOND AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT INTUBRITE LLC, 15 16 Case No. 12-cv-1078-BAS-JLB Counterclaimant, v. EDU-SCIENCE (USA) INC.; EDUSCIENCE (HK) LTD, 21 Counterdefendants. 22 AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS. 23 24 25 26 27 28 On August 26, 2015, after five days of trial, an impaneled jury of seven persons returned a special verdict in the instant action. The jury found: 1. Defendant IntuBrite LLC (“IntuBrite”) was not liable to Plaintiff EduScience (USA) Inc. for breach of contract; –1– 12cv1078 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Counterdefendant Edu-Science (USA) Inc. was liable to Counterclaimant IntuBrite for breach of contract; 3. IntuBrite suffered $0 in damages as a result of Edu-Science (USA)’s breach of contract; 4. Counterdefendant Edu-Science (HK) Ltd. was not liable to was not liable to Counterclaimant IntuBrite for breach of contract; 5. Counterdefendant Edu-Science (USA) Inc. 8 Counterclaimant IntuBrite for breach of the implied warranty of 9 merchantability; and 10 6. Counterdefendant Edu-Science (HK) Ltd. was not liable to 11 Counterclaimant IntuBrite for breach of the implied warranty of 12 merchantability. 13 In a judgment entered on Novermber 5, 2015, the Court entered judgment in 14 favor of IntuBrite on the latter’s breach of contract claim against Edu-Science 15 (USA), even though the jury found that IntuBrite suffered no damages. On 16 December 3, 2015, Edu-Science (USA) and Edu-Science (HK) (“Edu-Science 17 parties”) filed a motion to amend the judgment noting this mistake and requesting 18 that judgment be entered in favor of the Edu-Science parties on Intubrite’s 19 counterclaims. (ECF No. 195.) The Court entered an Amended Judgment on 20 December 11, 2015. (ECF No. 199.) On December 28, 2015, IntuBrite filed a motion 21 to amend the Amended Judgment requesting judgment be entered in favor of 22 IntuBrite on Edu-Science (USA) Inc.’s breach of contract claim. (ECF No. 200.) The 23 motion is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 24 25 26 27 28 (1) The Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in favor of IntuBrite on EduScience (USA) Inc.’s claim for breach of contract. (2) The Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in favor of Edu-Science (USA) Inc. on IntuBrite’s counterclaim for breach of contract. (3) The Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in favor of Edu-Science (USA) –2– 12cv1078 1 Inc. on IntuBrite’s counterclaim for breach of the implied warranty of 2 merchantability. 3 (4) The Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in favor of Edu-Science (HK) on 4 IntuBrite’s counterclaim for breach of the implied warranty of 5 merchantability. 6 7 (5) The Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in favor of Edu-Science (HK) on Intubrite’s counterclaim for breach of contract. 8 The Court’s Amended Judgment entered on December 11, 2015 is hereby 9 VACATED. (ECF No. 199.) IntuBrite’s motion to amend the judgment is 10 GRANTED. (ECF No. 200.) 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 DATED: April 5, 2016 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 –3– 12cv1078

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.