Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Techforward vs Best Buy - Punitive Damages Memorandum

Techforward vs Best Buy - Punitive Damages Memorandum

Views: 804 |Likes:
Published by Josh Kopelman
Techforward's memorandum of points and authorities in support of an award of punitive damages
Techforward's memorandum of points and authorities in support of an award of punitive damages

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Josh Kopelman on Dec 05, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Visibility:Private
See more
See less

01/04/2013

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Derek Mlosavlevc
 
(State Bar No.255134)derek.milosavljevic@kirkland.comKIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP333 South Hope StreetLos Angeles, California 90071Telephone: (213) 680-8400Facsimile: (213) 680-8500Joseph Serino, Jr.
(admitted pro hac vice)
 oseph.serino@kirkland.comEric Leon
(admitted pro hac vice)
 eric.leon@kirkland.comClaudia Ray
(admitted pro hac vice)
 claudia.ray@kirkland.comMark Rasmussen
(admitted pro hac vice)
mark.rasmussen@kirkland.comKIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP601 Lexington AvenueNew York, New York 10022Telephone: (212) 446-4800Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
 Attorneys for Plaintiff TechForward, Inc.
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TECHFORWARD, INC.,Plaintiff,vs.BEST BUY CO., INC.,BEST BUY ENTERPRISESERVICES, INC., andBEST BUY PURCHASING LLC,Defendants.)))))))))))))))))))))CASE NO. CV11-01313 ODW (JEMx) 
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUMOF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESIN SUPPORT OF AN AWARD OFPUNITIVE DAMAGES;[PROPOSED] ORDER
Hearing Date: TBDTime: TBDLocation: Courtroom 11
 
) 
Case 2:11-cv-01313-ODW -JEM Document 207 Filed 11/27/12 Page 1 of 15 Page ID#:3641
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 3
 
BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 5
 
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 5
 
A.
 
Best Buy’s Conduct Violated Basic Commercial Ethics. ..................... 5
 
B.
 
Exemplary Damages of No Less Than $22 Million Is Warranted inLight of the Compensatory Damages.................................................. 11
 
C.
 
Best Buy’s Substantial Net Worth Justifies Exemplary Damages of at Least $22 Million. ........................................................................... 13
 
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 14
 
 
Case 2:11-cv-01313-ODW -JEM Document 207 Filed 11/27/12 Page 2 of 15 Page ID#:3642
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITYPageCases
 
02 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc.
,399 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (N.D. Cal. 2005) ............................................................ 4, 10
Creative Computing v. Getloaded.com LLC 
,386 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................ 10
 Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc.,
155 Cal. App. 3d 381 (1984) ................................................................................ 11
 Eldorado Stone, LLC v. Renaissance Stone, Inc.
,04-CV-2562, 2007 WL 2403572 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2007) ............................... 10
 Maharis v. Omaha Vaccine Co.
,967 F.2d 588 (9th Cir. 1992) ................................................................................ 10
 Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc.
,801 F. Supp. 2d 950 (C.D. Cal. 2011) ........................................................... passim
 Merch. Transaction Sys., Inc. v. Nelcela, Inc.
,CV-02-1954, 2010 WL 1337711 (D. Ariz. Apr. 2, 2010),
aff’d 
, 439 F. App’x 620(9th Cir. 2011)....................................................................................................... 10
 Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exch.
,21 Cal. 3d 910, 148 Cal. Rptr. 389 P.2d 980 (1978) ........................................ 9, 11
Storage Servs. v. Oosterbaan,
214 Cal. App. 3d 498, 262 Cal. Rptr. 689 (1989) ................................................ 11
Vacco Indus., Inc. v. Van Den Berg
,5 Cal. App. 4th 34, 6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 602 (1992) .................................................... 10
 
Case 2:11-cv-01313-ODW -JEM Document 207 Filed 11/27/12 Page 3 of 15 Page ID#:3643

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->