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.

United Studios of Self Defense, Inc. v. Rinehart

United States District Court, C.D. California

December 30, 2019

UNITED STUDIOS OF SELF DEFENSE, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
KRISTOPHER RINEHART, MD, an individual; BRENT MURAKAMI, an individual; SOUTH BAY STUDIOS OF SELF DEFENSE, LLC, a California limited liability company; LOS ANGELES STUDIOS OF SELF DEFENSE, LLC, a California limited liability company; S.B. NINJA, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

          JUDGMENT AND ORDER

          THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter was before the Court on a bench trial held on October 29-31, 2019. The Action arises out of a contract dispute between United Studios of Self Defense Inc. (“USSD” or “Plaintiff”) and Kristopher Rinehart (“Rinehart”), Brent Murakami (“Murakami”) and entities owned wholly or partly by Rinehart and Murakami including Los Angeles Studios of Self Defense, LLC (“LASSD”), South Bay Studios of Self Defense, LLC (“SBSSD”), S.B. Ninja, LLC (“S.B. Ninja”), and Rolling Hills USSD, LLC (“RHSSD”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Matthew Berliner, Eric Hardeman, and Adam Harris of Fortis LLP appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Daniel DeCarlo and Esther Shin of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP appeared on behalf of Defendants.

         Having considered the evidence at trial, all papers filed in connection with this matter, and statements made on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that judgment is entered in favor of Defendants as follows:

         Plaintiffs Claims

         1. USSD's claim for breach of contract as to the Redondo Beach Franchise Agreement has no merit and Defendants are the prevailing party on this claim.

         2. USSD's claim for breach of contract as to the Beverly Hills Franchise Agreement has no merit and Defendants are the prevailing party on this claim.

         3. USSD's claim for declaratory relief as to the Redondo Beach Franchise Agreement has no merit and Defendants are the prevailing party on this claim.

         4. USSD's claim for intentional interference with contract against Murakami and S.B. Ninja has no merit and Defendants are the prevailing party on this claim.

         5. USSD's claim for false designation/unfair competition under the Lanham Act has no merit and Defendants are the prevailing party on this claim.

         6. USSD's claim for unfair business practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et. Seq. (“UCL”) has no merit and Defendants are the prevailing party on this claim.

         7. USSD's claim for accounting of profits made from Lanham Act violation has no merit and Defendants are the prevailing party on this claim.

         8. USSD's claim for declaratory relief under the Redondo Beach and Beverly Hills Franchise Agreements is GRANTED IN PART as defined in the Court's December 4, 2019 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

         9. USSD shall take nothing by way of its claims.

         Defendants' ...


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.