Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Title Evervictory Electronic B.V.I. Co., Ltd v. Invision Industries

October 22, 2012

TITLE EVERVICTORY ELECTRONIC B.V.I. CO., LTD.,
v.
INVISION INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Christina A. Snyder

Catherine Jeang Laura Elias N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not Present Kathryn Marshall

Proceedings: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND

NONTAXABLE EXPENSES (filed July 27, 2012)

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

On July 27, 2012, defendants Invision Industries, Inc., Invision Automotive Systems, Inc., and Audiovox Corporation filed the instant motion for attorneys' fees and nontaxable expenses. Dkt. No. 80. Defendants argue that as the prevailing parties to contract claims whereby plaintiff had claimed a right to attorneys' fees, they are entitled to an award of attorneys' fees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1717.

The Court found after a bench trial, inter alia, that as to plaintiff's contract claims (first through third claims):

28. Plaintiff has not established the existence of a valid contract as between plaintiff and Automotive. There is no contractual privity as between plaintiff and Automotive.

29. Plaintiff has not established the existence of a valid contract as between plaintiff and Audiovox. There is no contractual privity as between plaintiff and Audiovox. Dkt No. 75. As to plaintiff's fraud claims (fourth through sixth claims), the Court found 50. Automotive did not act with the actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of IDB in connection with the Purchase Agreement.

52. Audiovox did not act with the actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of IDB in connection with the Purchase Agreement.

Judgment was therefore entered for defendants on these claims, and this motion followed. The Court held a hearing on August 27, 2012, and again on October 22, 2012. Counsel for plaintiff were not present and never otherwise opposed this motion. After ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.