Canada Dry Delaware Valley Bottling Company et al v. Hornell Brewing Co., Inc.
| Canada Dry Delaware Valley Bottling Company and Canada Dry Potomac Corporation |
| Hornell Brewing Co., Inc. |
| 1:2011cv04308 |
| June 24, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Paul G. Gardephe |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 9 U.S.C. ยง 9 |
| None |
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
60
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Petitioners are awarded $103,705.00 in attorneys' fees and $7,626.66 in costs. Hornell will produce the following documents to Petitioners by December 13, 2013: (1) A log of all sales made by Hornell (includ ing its subsidiaries and affiliates) of 16ounce PET bottles of AriZona beverages, either directly or indirectly, that were delivered to any supermarkets and Target stores in Canada Dry Delaware and Canada Dry Potomac's exclusive distribution ter ritories from May 1, 2012 to the present. The log will include the name of the customer, the date purchased, each stock selling unit ("SKU") purchased, and the volume of the SKU product purchased. (2) Any and all contracts, agreements, or l etter agreements between Hornell and any other entity concerning the sale, distribution, delivery or transportation of AriZona beverages in 16 ounce PET bottles to supermarkets or Target outlets in Canada Dry's exclusive territories. Hornell wi ll also produce to Petitioners -on a monthly basis -updated information concerning these matters through December 31, 2015. Hornell will also produce for deposition the employee most knowledgeable about the distribution of 16-ounce PET bottles of AriZona beverages to supermarkets and Target stores in Canada Dry's exclusive territories. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 11/25/2013) (rsh)
|
|
Filing
46
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Canada Drys motion to enforce the Judgment (Dkt. No. 18) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above. Hornell is enjoined from:(1) distributing, directly or indirectly, 16-ounce PET bottles of Arizona products to supermarkets and Target stores in Canada Dry Delaware and Canada Dry Potomacs exclusive distribution territories; and(2) setting prices at which Canada Dry Delaware must sell 16-ounce PET bottles of Arizona products to club stores in Canada Dry D elawares exclusive territory, or conditioning its supply of Arizona products to Canada Dry Delaware on Canada Dry Delawares agreement to sell these products at a particular price. Canada Dry will make a submission by October 7, 2013, setting out, wit h specificity, what document and deposition discovery should be ordered concerning Hornells compliance with this Courts Judgment regarding the distribution of 16 ounce PET bottles. Hornell will file any responsive papers by October 14, 2013. Hornell is hereby ordered to pay Canada Dry's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing its motion to enforce the Judgment. Canada Dry will make a submission by October 7, 2013 supporting its request for attorneys' fees and co sts. Hornell will file any opposition by October 14, 2013. Canada Dry's motion to exclude the declarations of Howard S. Wolfson and John Welsh is denied. (Dkt. No. 25) Canada Dry's motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is also denied. (Dkt. No. 39) The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motions (Dkt. No. 18,25,39). ( Responses due by 10/14/2013) (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 9/30/2013) (cd)
|
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 Southern 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.
