Free Status Report - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 174.7 kB
Pages: 4
Date: January 25, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 875 Words, 5,467 Characters
Page Size: 622.08 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/23666/337.pdf

Download Status Report - District Court of Arizona ( 174.7 kB)


Preview Status Report - District Court of Arizona
Paul M, Levine (#007202)
; lVIcCARTHY El HOLTHUS ill LEVINE
3636 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1050
2 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
3 (602) 230-8726
VQIGVIl’I€GIii?’lCCO}’f(7)}—(2O[f]ZIIS.CON?
4
Maria Saiapska (#0 i95 85)
5 Law Oflice of Maria Saiapsica, PLLC
6 3001 E. Camelback Road, Suite 120
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
7 (480) 626-5597
msalags/co@s0lagska[aiv. com
8
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff Marlyn
Nutraceuticals, Inc.
to
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
ll
,2 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
13 MARLYN NLITRACEUTICALS, INC., an ) No. CIV 02-i 876 PHX—I~IRI·I
Arizona corporation, )
I4 )
,5 Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF IVIARLYN
) NUTRACEUTICALS, INCFS
16 vs. ) STATUS REPORT
)
W WILLIAM WONG and JANE DOE WONG, )
I S husband and wife; PATRICK BUEHL and JANE )
DOE BIEEI-IL, husband and wife; WORLD )
lg NUTRITION, INC., an Arizona corporation; )
ABC Corporations I~X; XYZ Partnerships LX; and )
20 JOHN DOES I-X and JANE DOES I—X, husbands )
and wives, respectively, )
2* ) (Assigned to the Honorable
77 Defendants. ) I~i. Russel I~IolIand)
‘“‘ D
23 )
WORLD NUTRITION, INC., an Arizona )
ga corporation, )
)
2.5 Third Party Plaintiff/Counterclaimantl )
Defendant, )
I
vs. )
Case 2:02-cv-01876-HRH Document 337 Filed O1/25/2008 Page 1 of 4

)
I MARLYN NUTRACEUTICALS, INC., an )
Arizona Corporation; and CRAIG KNOBLOCH, )
2. )
Counterdeferrdant/Plaintiff/Third )
3 Party Defendant, )
)
4 3
5 Plaintiff, l\/Iarlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. ("Marlyn"), by and through its counsel
6
undersigned, submits the following Status Report to the Court,
7
The parties conducted a Settlement Conference with Judge Voss on January 7, .2008,
8
which was unsuccessful, although the parties are continuing their efforts,
9
I0 With respect to the retrial on damages, Marilyn proposes that the jury be presented
I I with certain stipulated facts and findings from the first trial regarding liability. In addition, in order
ig for thejury to fully comprehend the issue of punitive damages, Marilyn should have the opportunity
I3 to present a portion of its case, either through stipulated facts or through the transcript of the
I4 original trial, which will support Mar‘lyn’s right to punitive damages andthe amount thereof. On
i5 retrial, the jury should be told that it must award punitive damages, based on the findings ofthe
I6
j ury inthe iirst trial, As an alternative, the Court should consider awarding punitive damages based
17
on the same ratio that punitive damages bears to the original damage award, that is, any award of
iS
I 19 punitive damages should be based on a factor of 130% ofthe award of damages thejury awards on
M 20 retriairi
ZE On retrial, Marlyn submits that no new witnesses or exhibits should he offered and
2.2 the parties should be limited to the prior disclosures and the testimony at the original trial. This is
23 based on the l°laintift" s belief that the jury will be given the same jury instructions on Plaintiff s
24
25
I This is barred on thefru:1 rim! the pzmitive dnrarnges ($3,000,000 00) were 1 3 0% of the £2r£TH1£IgI2-S mvcxrded
($2.300,000 OO)
2
Case 2:O2—cv—O1876-HRH Document 337 Filed O1/25/2008 Page 2 of 4

unfair competition, trade libel and Lanham Act claims. Particularly, Plaintiff should be entitled to
I offer evidence regarding World N'utrition’s sales of Vitalzyrn for the years 2002 through 2005.
2
World Nutrition did not present any evidence that any of these sales were related to anything other
3
than its false claims, as was set forth in the original trial and as found by the original jury.
4
5 Therefore, World Nutrition should not be permitted to present any new evidence, in any form, to
6 suggest that its sales for 2002 through 2005 were the result ofany other advertising, promotion or
7 reason, or anything other than its conduct as set forth in the original trial.
8 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITED this 25m day of January, 2008.
9 McCAR'I`HY Y HOLTHUS YLEVINE
10
ll fsf Paul M. Levine
U Paul M. Levine
" 3636 N. Central Ave., Suite l050
13 Phoenix, Arizona 850 i 2
Attorneys for Plaintiff
I4
i5
16
ll I hereby certify that on January 25, 2008,
,8 I electronically transmitted the attached
document to the Clerl<’s Office using the
° l9 CM/ECP Systein for tiling and transtittai
" ofa Notice of Electronic Filing to the following
20 CM/ECP registrants:
21
Law Office of Maria Salapska, PLLC
22 3001 East Camelback Road, Suite 120
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
23 Aaamey rei rraratrrr
24
25
3
Case 2:02-cv-01876-HRH Document 337 Filed O1/25/2008 Page 3 of 4

Stephen D. Hoftinan, Esq.
; Lewis Btisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
2929 N, Central Ave., Suite 1700
2 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
3 Attorneys for Defendants, Counter-
Claimant and Third Party Plaintiff
4
Jones, Skelton & Hoehuli
5 2901 N. Central, Suite 800
6 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Attorney for Defendants
7
/s/ Linda S. Ream
8
9
10
ll
12
13
I4
I5
i6
17
18
I l9
.20
21
22
.23
2,4
.25
4
Case 2:02-cv-01876-HRH Document 337 Filed O1/25/2008 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-01876-HRH

Document 337

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-01876-HRH

Document 337

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-01876-HRH

Document 337

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-01876-HRH

Document 337

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 4 of 4