Free Report - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 208.5 kB
Pages: 4
Date: July 10, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 905 Words, 5,619 Characters
Page Size: 622.08 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/23666/384.pdf

Download Report - District Court of Arizona ( 208.5 kB)


Preview Report - District Court of Arizona
I Paul M. Levine, Esq, (#007202)
McCARTHY O HOLTHUS O LEVINE
2 3636 North Central Avenue
Suite 1050
3 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
(602) 2.30-8726
4 plevine@:rrccar·tlqy—h0lth2:s,com
5 .
Maria Salapska (#0 1 95 85)
6 LAW OFFICE OF MARIA SALAPSKA, PLLC
3001 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 120
7 Phoenix, Arizona 85016
(480) 626-5597
8 msc:lczpsko@selapskolaw,com
9 Attorneys for PiaintifffCounterdefendant
Martyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. and Third Party Defendant Craig K.r1o`oioch
10
ii UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
13 Mnmvn NUTRACEUTICALS, inc, Ne CIV 024876 PHX-HRH
14 an Arizona corporation,
Plaintiff,
15
vs.
I6
WILLIAM WONG and JANE DOE WONG,
17 imaged and wife; i>Ariocr< seam me PI-AINTIFF’g(1)*i`€?T1§,(12RT TO THE
JANE DOE BUEHL, husband and wife;
is WORLD NUTRITION, INC., an Arizona
corporation; ABC Corporations I-X; XYZ
19 Partnerships LX; and JOHN DOES I—X and
JANE DOES I-X, husbands and wives,
. 20 respectively,
21 Defendants,
22
23 WOMD NUTRITION, ING, an Arizona
corporation,
24 , . . _ .
Third Party Plaintiff/Counterclaimant!
25 Defendant,
26 vs.
27 MARLYN Noraaoaorrcnrs, rr~rc,, an
Arizona corporation; and CRAIG
28 Krioarocn,
Case 2:O2—cv—O1876-HRH Document 384 Filed 07/1 O/2008 Page 1 of 4

1
2 Counterclefeuciant/Plaintiff/Tliird
3 Party Befendant
4
5 Plaintiff, Marlyn Nutraceuticals, inc. ("Marlyn"), by and through its
6 counsel undersigned, in response to the Court’s June ll, 2008 Order, submits the
7 following Report.
8 l. Marlyn proposes a retrial to commence February l6, 2009.
lg Undersigned counsel will be involved in a trial starting Tuesday, October 14, 2008 and
11 will not be able to adequately prepare for another jury trial scheduled for the first two
12 weeks of November 2008. Therefore, undersigned counsel requests that the Court set
13 this matter for trial on February 16, 2009.
1; 2. With respect to a retrial, counsel for Marlyn and World Nutrition
16 will have to work together regarding the witnesses to be called at trial concerning the
U issue of damages. At a minimurn, those witnesses will likely include World’s President,
18 Ryuji Hirooka, and its expert, Leroy Gaintner. Other damages witnesses may also be
19
20 necessary.
21 Marlyn also seeks clarification of language contained in the Cou1t’s June
22 ll, 2008 Order, at page 4, lines 4 ~— 6. In its Order, the Court states that ". . . plaintiff will
23 have to show damages from sales of Vitalzym to _o_v;r_t customers as opposed to plaintiffs
customers? Undersigned counsel assumes that the Court means that . . plaintiff will
26 have to show damages from sales ofVitalzyrn to World Nutrition customers as opposed
27 to plaintiff s customers?
28
Case 2:O2—cv—O1876—HFlH Document 3824 Filed 07/10/2008 Page 2 of 4

l Martyn reiterates that it will be virtually impossible for a jury to determine
2 the basis for an award of punitive damages since there will be no testimony regarding the
3
conduct and liability of World Nutrition and the juiy will not have an opportunity to
4
5 review the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses. Nevertheless, counsel for Martyn
6 proposes to review the testimony of the witnesses and provide a detailed summary of the
7 proposed statements to be read to the jury. The statements will be presented to counsel
8
for World Nutrition for his review. Martyn proposes that those statements be presented
9
10 to World Nutrition’s counsel 60 days prior to trial and that World Nutrition have 30 days
li to respond
12 All testimony and exhibits admitted at the tirst trial should be deemed
13
admissible on retrial, subject only to the Court’s comments regarding retrial. In other
14
15 words, any evidence at the lirst trial should NOT be subject to any motions in Limine or
16 other motions.
17 3. Martyn does not agree to conclude the District Court litigation as the
18
Court suggests, that is, with a Stipulated Judgment of $6,185.65, pins some amount
19
20 between $6,000.00 and $54,000.00 for punitive damages.
21 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this l0°° day ofluiy, 2008.
gg McCAR'l“I—IY El HOLTHUS [3 LEVINE
23
24 /s/ Paul M. Levine
Paul M. Levine
25 3636 N. Central Ave., Suite 1050
Phoenix, Arizona 850i2
26 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant
and Third Party Defendant Craig
27 Knobloch
28
Case 2:02-cv-01876-HRH Document 3834- Filed 07/10/2008 Page 3 of 4

1 I hereby certify that on }u1y 10, 2008,
I electronically transmitted the attached
2 Document to the C1erk’s Office using the
CM/ECP System for tiling and transmittai
3 Of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following
CM/ECP registrants:
4
Maria Salapska, Esq.
5 Law Office of Maria Salapska, PLLC
3001 E. CAMELBACK RD., SUITE 120
6 Phoenix, Arizona 85016
7
Stephen I). 1{oftinan, Esq.
8 Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
2929 N, Central Ave., Suite 1700
9 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Attorneys for Defendants, Counter-
10 Claimant and Third Party Plaintiff
11 www
Pete Boyle, Esq.
12 Jones, Skelton & Hochuli
2901 N. Centra}, Suite 800
13 Phoenix, Arizona 850 I2
Attorney for Defendant Patrick Buehl
14
15
16 /s/ Linda S. Ream
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 2:02-cv-01876-HRH Document 3844 Filed 07/10/2008 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-01876-HRH

Document 384

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-01876-HRH

Document 384

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-01876-HRH

Document 384

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-01876-HRH

Document 384

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 4 of 4