LAWSON v. A.P. INDUSTRIES, INC.

LAWSON v. A.P. INDUSTRIES, INC.

Plaintiff:	JOHN RUSSELL LAWSON
Defendant:	A.P. INDUSTRIES, INC.
Case Number:	1:2008cv00835
Filed:	November 17, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Office:	Contract: Other Office
County:	Guilford
Presiding Judge:
Presiding Judge:	WALLACE W. DIXON
Presiding Judge:	UNASSIGNED
Nature of Suit:	Plaintiff
Cause of Action:	Diversity
Jury Demanded By:	Diversity

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
January 28, 2010	Filing 30 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING - MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE WALLACE W. DIXON on 1/28/10 re 18 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by A.P. INDUSTRIES, INC. be GRANTED. To this extent, the court shouldmake the following findings of law: (1) Plaintiff cannot establish a claim for breach of contract seeking royalties on Defendants Oceanic Collection, Napa Valley Collection, and Cottage Bunk Bed because he did not design those collections; (2) Plaintiff cannot establish a claim f or breach of contract seeking unpaid royalties on Defendant's Wrenns Nest, Cambridge, Icon, La Renaissance, and Burlington Collections, and Cambridge crib as a matter of law, as Plaintiff has conceded that he is not owed any more royalties on th ese collections; (3) Plaintiff's breach of contract claim seeking unpaid royalties on Defendant's Wrenn's Nest Crib, Shuttered Sleigh Bed, and Princess Bed are limited to the royalties that became due on or after October 13, 2005, as P laintiff has conceded that his recovery is limited to this date by the applicable statute of limitations; and (4) Plaintiff's claims for fraud and unfair and deceptive trade practices should be dismissed because Plaintiff has expressly abandoned these claims. As to Plaintiff's claim for unpaid royalties on the Wrenn's Nest Crib, Shuttered Sleigh Bed (referred to by Defendant as a low-profile version designed by Plaintiff for Defendant's Icon collection), and a component of th e Princess Bed (designed by Plaintiff) that became due on or after October 13, 2005, this case should not be dismissed outright, as these claims may still be viable. (See Pomerleau Decl. 24-28.) That is, as to these three items, Defendant's Tre asurer Alain Pomerleau states in his Declaration that Defendant inadvertently failed to pay royalties to Plaintiff for these items and that once Defendant discovered the oversight, Defendant began paying Plaintiff royalties for these items effective August 2009. (Id.) Defendant does not address clearly, however, whether Plaintiff is still owed any royalties for these three items from between October 13, 2005 (the agreed-upon statute of limitations cut-off date) and when Defendant began paying him royalties effective August 2009. In sum, Plaintiff's breach of contract claim should not be dismissed in its entirety. (Wilson, JoAnne)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 28, 2010

Filing 30 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING - MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE WALLACE W. DIXON on 1/28/10 re 18 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by A.P. INDUSTRIES, INC. be GRANTED. To this extent, the court shouldmake the following findings of law: (1) Plaintiff cannot establish a claim for breach of contract seeking royalties on Defendants Oceanic Collection, Napa Valley Collection, and Cottage Bunk Bed because he did not design those collections; (2) Plaintiff cannot establish a claim f or breach of contract seeking unpaid royalties on Defendant's Wrenns Nest, Cambridge, Icon, La Renaissance, and Burlington Collections, and Cambridge crib as a matter of law, as Plaintiff has conceded that he is not owed any more royalties on th ese collections; (3) Plaintiff's breach of contract claim seeking unpaid royalties on Defendant's Wrenn's Nest Crib, Shuttered Sleigh Bed, and Princess Bed are limited to the royalties that became due on or after October 13, 2005, as P laintiff has conceded that his recovery is limited to this date by the applicable statute of limitations; and (4) Plaintiff's claims for fraud and unfair and deceptive trade practices should be dismissed because Plaintiff has expressly abandoned these claims. As to Plaintiff's claim for unpaid royalties on the Wrenn's Nest Crib, Shuttered Sleigh Bed (referred to by Defendant as a low-profile version designed by Plaintiff for Defendant's Icon collection), and a component of th e Princess Bed (designed by Plaintiff) that became due on or after October 13, 2005, this case should not be dismissed outright, as these claims may still be viable. (See Pomerleau Decl. 24-28.) That is, as to these three items, Defendant's Tre asurer Alain Pomerleau states in his Declaration that Defendant inadvertently failed to pay royalties to Plaintiff for these items and that once Defendant discovered the oversight, Defendant began paying Plaintiff royalties for these items effective August 2009. (Id.) Defendant does not address clearly, however, whether Plaintiff is still owed any royalties for these three items from between October 13, 2005 (the agreed-upon statute of limitations cut-off date) and when Defendant began paying him royalties effective August 2009. In sum, Plaintiff's breach of contract claim should not be dismissed in its entirety. (Wilson, JoAnne)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 North Carolina Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: LAWSON v. A.P. INDUSTRIES, INC.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: JOHN RUSSELL LAWSON
Represented By:	RICHARD A. MANGER
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: A.P. INDUSTRIES, INC.
Represented By:	LUCRETIA D. GUIA
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?