Nature's Plus Nordic A/S et al v. Natual Organics, Inc. et al
| Nature's Plus Nordic A/S and Dermagruppen A/S |
| Natual Organics, Inc., House of Nature A/S and Hans Kare Lundestad |
| 2:2009cv04256 |
| October 2, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Suffolk |
| Arthur D. Spatt |
| A. Kathleen Tomlinson |
| Plaintiff |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Other Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
373
DECISION AND ORDER granting 368 Motion for Damages; Having rejected NOIs arguments contesting NPNs entitlement to pre-judgment interest, the Court turns to the underlying calculations. NOI does not contest NPNs specific calculations of prejudgmen t interest based on the recalculated damages award. Accordingly, the Court grants that part of NPNs April 28, 2015 motion for pre-judgment interest under CPLR 5001 at nine percent per annum in the amount of $2,115,281.50, owed from the date of t he breach, August 6, 2009, through the date of the jury verdict, January 23, 2015, based on the recalculated damages award of $4,300,071. The Court also grants that part of NPNs April 28, 2015 motion for entry of judgment awarding it damages in the amount of $4,300,071, pursuant to the April 14, 2015 order. Finally, the Court grants as unopposed that part of NPNs April 28, 2015 motion for post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) based on the recalculated jury award at the statutory rate calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment. See Indu Craft, Inc. v. Bank of Baroda, 87 F.3d 614, 619 (2d Cir. 1996)([t]he award of post-judgment interest is mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.). Given the procedural comp lexities surrounding the issuance of an amended judgment, the prior notices of appeal, and the supersedeas bond, the Court directs NPN and NOI to jointly file a proposed amended judgment consistent with this order, and all prior orders in this case, on or before Friday, June 19, 2015. Should NPN and NOI fail to agree to any language in the proposed amended judgment, either party may file a separate letter in conjunction with the proposed amended judgment noting any such disagreement. Given the outstanding motions for default judgment, the case will remain open. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 6/5/2015. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
|
Filing
367
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER denying 344 Motion for Damages; granting in part and denying in part 348 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; denying 348 Motion for New Trial; denying 362 Motion for Damages; Based on the foregoing re asons, NOIs Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted so as to vacate that portion of the out of pocket expenses jury award based on employee severance pay in the amount of $133 ,192. The motion is otherwise denied. NOIs alternative Rule 59 motion is also denied. An amended judgment will be entered following disposition of NPNs requests for pre- and post-judgment interest. NPNs February 13, 2015 amended motion for pre-judgme nt interest, post-judgment interest, and costs is denied without prejudice with leave to renew to account for the Courts ruling on severance pay. Any such motion must be filed within fourteen days of the date of this order, after which NOI will have fourteen days to respond, with a reply brief, if any, by NPN then filed within 7 days. The parties are directed to address the issue as to whether the Court may tax costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and Local Civil Rule 54.1(a) at this juncture of the l itigation notwithstanding the filing of NOIs notice of appeal. Finally, the Court directs NOI to file any contemplated Rule 54 motion as to Dermagruppen within fourteen days of the date of this order, after which Dermagruppen will have fourteen days to respond, with a reply brief, if any, by NOI then filed within 7 days. Although Dermagruppen was previously represented in this case by counsel for NPN, the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to reinstate Dermagruppen on the electronic do cket so it will receive formal notice of any such motion. That part of NPNs March 26, 2015 motion for pre-judgment interest in the amount of $2,180,801.01 is denied as duplicative of the same request as in the February 13, 2015 motion. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 4/14/2015. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
|
Filing
209
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 189 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 197 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - It is hereby ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs motion for p artial summary judgment on their breach of contract claim is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above; and it is further ORDERED, that NOIs motion for partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs breach of contract and NYFSA claims is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above; and it is further ORDERED, that the Court reserves decision on the motion in limine to exclude the expert testimony of Keegan. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 11/6/2013. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
|
Filing
129
ORDER denying 101 Motion for Discovery. For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED ORDER, Plaintiffs' motion to compel is DENIED. The parties are directed to participate in a telephone conference on May 25, 2012 at 3:30 p.m. Plaintiffs counsel is directed to initiate the call to Chambers. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 4/30/2012. (Spatola, Richard)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
