G.P.P., Inc. v. Guardian Protection Products, Inc.

MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT

E.D. Cal.November 9, 2016

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 CALVIN E. DAVIS (SBN: 101640) cdavis@gordonrees.com MARGARET M. DRUGAN (SBN: 175324) mdrugan@gordonrees.com GARY A. COLLIS (SBN: 191800) gcollis@gordonrees.com GORDON & REES LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-5000 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Guardian Protection Products, Inc. and Defendant RPM Wood Finishes Group, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA G.P.P., Inc., d/b/a GUARDIAN INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS Plaintiff, vs. GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, INC. and RPM WOOD FINISHES GROUP, INC. Defendants. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00321 SKO COUNTERCLAIMANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE COUNTERCLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF [Fed. R. Civ. P. 56] Date: December 21, 2016 Time: 9:30 a.m. Courtroom: 7 Judge: Hon. Sheila K. Oberto TO ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 21, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, Counterclaimant Guardian Protection Products, Inc. (“Guardian”), will, and hereby does, move the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, located at 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California, 93721, in Courtroom 7 (Sixth Floor), for an order authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 granting partial summary judgment in counterclaimant’s favor as to the first cause of action in the Counterclaim for declaratory relief as noted in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 This motion is based on this notice, the memorandum of points and authorities, the declarations of Margaret M. Drugan, including all exhibits thereto, the separate statement of undisputed material facts, the statement of stipulated facts, the request for judicial notice and all exhibits thereto, and all other papers in the record. Dated: November 9, 2016 GORDON & REES LLP By: /s/ Margaret M. Drugan_____ Calvin E. Davis Margaret M. Drugan Gary A. Collis Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, INC. and Defendant RPM WOOD FINISHES GROUP, INC. Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION This dispute concerns nine “Warehousing Distributor Agreements” (“WDAs”) between Plaintiff G.P.P., Inc. d/b/a Guardian Innovative Solutions (“GIS”) and Defendant Guardian Protection Products, Inc. (“Guardian”). The WDAs grant GIS the right to distribute Guardian Labeled Distributor Products (“Guardian Products”) in nine geographic territories described in each WDA (which collectively encompass eleven states or parts of states and the District of Columbia) in exchange for GIS’s satisfaction of purchase quotas in sums identified in each WDA. In this motion, Guardian seeks an order of partial summary judgment on its declaratory relief cause of action because each of the WDAs between GIS and Guardian contain a provision which precludes GIS from selling products within their exclusive territories as identified in the WDAs that compete with Guardian products. GIS has admittedly been selling and continues to sell its dreamGuard mattress protection products in its exclusive territories in competition to Guardian’s mattress protection product. As such, Guardian seeks an order from this court granting partial summary judgment declaring that GIS’ sale of dreamGuard mattress protection products in the exclusive territories identified in the WDAs is a violation of the non-compete provisions in each of those WDAs which would support Guardian’s termination of each of the WDAs. Additionally, the WDAs contain a provision that limits GIS’ distribution rights to only those products defined as “Guardian Labeled Distributor Products.” The electronic furniture protection plans are not “Guardian Labeled Distributor Products” and as such, are not subject to the WDAs. Therefore, Guardian seeks an order from this court granting partial summary judgment declaring that electronic furniture protection plans are not “Guardian Labeled Distributor Products” as defined in the WDAs. Guardian respectfully asks that the Court grant partial summary judgment in their favor as to Guardian’s first cause of action in the Counterclaim. Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92 Filed 11/09/16 Page 3 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 II. BACKGROUND FACTS GIS and Guardian are parties to nine separate “Warehousing Distributor Agreements” (collectively, “WDAs”). (RJN, Exh. A [SAC, ¶¶ 6-11; Dkt. #67, pgs. 2-4].) Each WDA grants GIS exclusive distribution rights for Guardian Labeled Distributor Products (“Guardian Products”) within a specified geographic area. (RJN Exh. A [SAC, ¶ 12 and Exhibits 1-11; Dkt. #67, pg. 4; 67-1; 67-2, pg. 2; 67-3, pg. 2; 67-5, pg. 2; 67-6, pg. 2; 67-7, pg. 2; 67-9, pg. 2; 67-10, pg. 2; 67-11, pg. 2.].) Each WDA establishes a quota of Guardian Products that GIS must purchase. (RJN, Exh. A [SAC, ¶¶ 7-10 and Exhibits 1-3, 5-7, & 9-11; Dkt. #67, pgs. 2-3; 67-1; 67-2, pg. 11; 67-3, pg. 11; 67-5, pg. 12; 67-6, pg. 14; 67-7, pg. 11; 67-9, pg. 12; 67-10, pg. 11; 67-11, pg. 8.].). The first WDA, dated May 5, 1988, covers certain counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (“Pennsylvania Agreement”). (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-1.].) The second WDA, dated December 6, 1988, covers the remaining counties in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Washington D.C., and counties in Western New York (“Mid-Atlantic Agreement”). (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67- 2, pg. 11.].) The third WDA, dated April 2, 1990, covers the State of Ohio (“Ohio Agreement”). (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-3, pg. 13.].) The fourth WDA, dated August 30, 1988, covers Cook County, Illinois (“Cook County Agreement”). (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-4, pg. 12.].) The fifth WDA, dated March 15, 1991, covers the State of Indiana (“Indiana Agreement”). (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-6, pg. 13.].) The sixth WDA, dated May 5, 1998, covers the remaining counties in the State of Illinois, the State of Iowa, and counties in Eastern Missouri (“Midwest Agreement”). (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-7, pg. 7.].) The seventh WDA, dated November 4, 1997, covers the State of Alabama (“Alabama Agreement”). (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-9, pg. 11.].) The eighth WDA, dated November 17, 1988, covers the State of Florida (“Florida Agreement”). (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-10, pg. 14.].) The ninth WDA, dated November 4, 1997, covers the State of Tennessee (“Tennessee Agreement”). (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-11, pg. 7.].) The following chart details the WDAs’ short titles, contracting dates, and covered geographic areas: Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92 Filed 11/09/16 Page 4 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 Short Title Contracting Date Geographic Area Pennsylvania Agreement May 5, 1988 Specified counties in Pennsylvania Mid-Atlantic Agreement December 6, 1988 The remaining counties in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Washington, D.C., and specified counties in Western New York Ohio Agreement April 2, 1990 Ohio Cook County Agreement August 30, 1988 Cook County, Illinois Indiana Agreement March 15, 1991 Indiana Midwest Agreement May 5, 1998 The remaining counties in Illinois, Iowa, and specified counties in Eastern Missouri Alabama Agreement November 4, 1997 Alabama Florida Agreement November 17, 1988 Florida Tennessee Agreement November 4, 1997 Tennessee GIS became a party to the WDAs on May 5, 1988 (Pennsylvania Agreement), December 6, 1988 (Mid-Atlantic Agreement), April 2, 1990 (Ohio Agreement), April 23, 2007 (Cook County Agreement, Indiana Agreement, and Midwest Agreement), and March 5, 2010 (Alabama Agreement, Florida Agreement, and Tennessee Agreement). (Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts, No. 11.) Guardian became a party to the WDAs for the first time on February 1, 2000, more than two years after the most recent WDA was originally made, upon the APA’s effective date. (Holman Declaration filed in support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 3; APA, ¶ 8.1.) CFDC, Inc. is a company created by GIS for the purpose of selling dreamGuard, a competing product in GIS’ exclusive territories covered by the WDAs. (Drugan Decl., Exh. B [Nolan dep., pgs. 261-264, lns. 5-12; and Depo. Exh. 89, attached as Exhibit D to the Drugan Declaration.]). A. Non-Compete Provision Each of the WDAs contains a non-compete provision that provides: Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92 Filed 11/09/16 Page 5 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6- POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 As another and further consideration for the execution of this Agreement, Distributor agrees that it will not compete with GPP by selling competing products during the term of this Agreement in its assigned area(s). “Competing products” mean product of comparable claims or qualities. Should GPP develop new products and prices, Distributor agrees not to sell products which compete with said new products.1 In 2011, GIS formed another company called CFDC, Inc. (“dreamGuard”) to sell dreamGuard mattress protection products. (Drugan Decl., Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pgs. 72-73, lns. 23-5; pgs. 171-172, lns. 25-6.].) GIS and dreamGuard are owned by the same people. (Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pg. 37, lns. 14-25; pgs. 51-52, lns. 24-8; and Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pg. 160, lns. 11-20.].) GIS and dreamGuard have the same board of directors. (Drugan Decl., Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pg. 37, lns. 8-25; pg. 57, lns. 8-21.].) Frank Gibson is the President of both GIS and dreamGuard. (Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pg. 37, lns. 14- 19; and Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts, No. --.]). Christopher Nolan is the Executive Vice President of both GIS and dreamGuard. (Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pgs. 38-39, lns. 12-13.] and Exh. B [Nolan dep., pg. 45, lns. 17-24.]). GIS and dreamGuard share the same employees including sales people. (Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pgs. 38-39, lns. 16- 13.]; and Exh. B [Nolan dep., pg. 44, lns. 7-17; pg. 45, lns. 17-24; pg. 71, lns. 11-13; pgs. 72-74, lns. 25-3; and pgs. 104-106, lns. 25-2.]). GIS and dreamGuard share the same facility. (Drugan Decl., Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pg. 35, lns. 9-11.]). GIS and dreamGuard share the same computer system. (Drugan Decl., Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pg. 167, lns. 6-9.]). GIS formed dreamGuard for the purpose of selling dreamGuard products within its distribution territories subject to the WDAs with Guardian. (Drugan Decl., Exh. B [Nolan dep., pgs. 261-264, lns. 5-12; and Depo. Exh. 89, attached as Exhibit D to the Drugan Declaration.]). In 2011, GIS sold dreamGuard mattress protection products including a micro fleece mattress protector. (Drugan Decl., Exh. B [Nolan dep., pgs. 243-244, lns. 24-2; pg. 248, lns. 12- 17; pg. 260, lns. 1-17.] and Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pgs. 159-160, lns. 25-20; pgs. 171-172, lns. 1 “Pennsylvania Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-1, PP. 5-6, ¶ 10]); “Mid-Atlantic Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-2, p. 6, ¶ 11.].) “Ohio Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-3, pp. 5-6, ¶ 12.]); “Cook County Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-5, p. 6, ¶ 11.]); “Indiana Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-6, pp. 6-7,¶ 12.]); “Midwest Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-7, ¶ 10.]); “Alabama Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-9, ¶ 10.]); “Florida Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-10, ¶ 11.]); and “Tennessee Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-11, ¶ 10.].) Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92 Filed 11/09/16 Page 6 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7- POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 25-6.]). In 2011, Guardian also sold a micro fleece mattress protector. (Drugan Decl., Exh. B [Nolan dep., pgs. 243-244, lns. 24-2; pg. 248, lns. 12-17; pg. 260, lns. 1-17.]). In 2011, both dreamGuard and Guardian had an entry level mattress protection pad for sale at the time that dreamGuard launched its micro fleece mattress protector. (Drugan Decl., Exh. B [Nolan dep., pg. 260, lns. 1-17.]). GIS continues to sell the dreamGuard product today. (Drugan Decl., Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pgs. 159-160, lns. 25-20.]). GIS did not geographically limit where they sold dreamGuard products. (Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pgs. 263-264, lns. 21-12] and Exh B [Nolan dep., pgs. 104-106, 25-2; and pg. 258, lns. 17-20.]). GIS would sell dreamGuard products within the GIS territories covered by the WDAs. (Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pgs. 263-264, lns. 21-12] and Exh B [Nolan dep., pgs. 104-106, 25-2; and pg. 258, lns. 17-20.]). GIS never obtained permission from Guardian to sell dreamGuard products within GIS’ exclusive territories identified in the WDAs. (Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pgs. 266-267, lns. 12-11] and Exh B [Nolan dep., pg. 245, lns. 12-21.]). GIS never received any document from Guardian indicating that Guardian was okay with GIS selling dreamGuard within its exclusive territories identified in the WDAs. (Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pg. 268, lns. 6-10.]). B. Guardian Labeled Products Each of the WDAs provides GIS with the exclusive right to distribute “Guardian Labeled Products” in the territory identified in each WDA. (RJN Exh. A [SAC, ¶ 12 and Exhibits 1-11; Dkt. #67, pg. 4; 67-1; 67-2, pg. 2; 67-3, pg. 2; 67-5, pg. 2; 67-6, pg. 2; 67-7, pg. 2; 67-9, pg. 2; 67-10, pg. 2; 67-11, pg. 2.].) The WDAs, with the exception of the Pennsylvania Agreement, define Guardian Products as those produced or caused to be produced by Guardian and which are identified as Guardian Products on the front panel of the product label. (“Mid-Atlantic Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-2, ¶ 7(c).].) “Ohio Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-3, ¶ 8.]); “Cook County Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-5, ¶7(c).]); “Indiana Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-6, ¶ 8.]); “Midwest Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-7, ¶ 8.]); “Alabama Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-9, ¶ 8.]); “Florida Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-10, ¶ 7(c).]); and “Tennessee Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-11, ¶ 8.].) Electronic furniture Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92 Filed 11/09/16 Page 7 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -8- POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 protection plans are AIG/Chartis products and only administered by Guardian. (Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pgs. 270-274, lns. 14-2].). III. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. The Summary Judgment Standard The purpose of summary judgment “is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Summary judgment is proper where the undisputed evidence shows “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Indeed, under such circumstances, summary disposition is favored “to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 327. Rule 56 does not require that the moving party present evidence “negating the opponent’s claim;” rather, it need only show “that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-25. Where judgment on the entire case is not sought, the Court may adjudicate certain issues on which facts are undisputed, and treat those issues as already established for purposes of trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). In such cases of partial summary judgment, the Court should issue an order “specifying the facts that appear without substantial controversy … and directing such further proceedings in the action as are just.” Id. As discussed below, this standard compels an order for Guardian on its first cause of action for declaratory relief in its Counterclaim on the two issues identified below. B. Guardian is entitled to a Judicial Declaration that GIS’ Sale of dreamGuard Mattress Protection Products in the Exclusive Territories Covered by the WDAs is Grounds to Terminate the WDAs The Declaratory Judgment Act provides that, “[i]n a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction . . . any court of the United States . . . may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). Additionally, California Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92 Filed 11/09/16 Page 8 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -9- POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 authorizes actions for declaratory relief arising under a “written instrument” or “contract.”2 Declaratory relief may be sought to resolve disputes involving a party’s right to terminate a contract. Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. v. Leisure Time Productions, B.V. 17 F.3d 38, 39-40 (2nd Cir. 1994). “The law allows any party with an interest in a contract to pursue a declaration of rights as to that instrument when an actual controversy exists.” Market Lofts Community Association v. 9th Street Market Lofts, LLC, 222 Cal.App.4th 924, 932 (2014) “A declaratory judgment action may be brought to establish rights once a conflict has arisen, or a party may request declaratory relief as a prophylactic measure before a breach occurs.” Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 28 Cal.4th 888, 898 (2002). “In an action for declaratory relief, . . . a motion for summary judgment is an appropriate proceeding to declare the rights of the parties if they can be determined as a matter of law.” Arroyo v. Regents of University of California, 48 Cal.App.3d 793, 795 (1975). Federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural law. Mason & Dixon Intermodal, Inc. v. Lapmaster Int'l LLC, 632 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2011) (“When a district court sits in diversity, or hears state law claims based on supplemental jurisdiction, the court applies state substantive law to the state law claims.”). An actual controversy has arisen between the parties as to whether GIS’ prior and continued sale of dreamGuard mattress protection products in its exclusive territories covered by the WDAs is a violation of the WDAs’ non-complete provision which would enable Guardian to terminate all of the WDAs. In this instance, Guardian’s position is that GIS’ sale of dreamGuard mattress protection products in its own exclusive territories covered by the WDAs is a violation of the WDAs’ non-compete provision which would support termination of the WDAs. GIS contends that its sale of dreamGuard mattress protection products in its own exclusive territories does not violate the WDAs’ non-compete provision but that it is not selling dreamGuard, another corporation is selling it. However it is clear from the undisputed facts that dreamGuard is the alter ego of GIS. 2 In diversity actions in federal courts, the federal court have applied California Code of Civil Procedure section 1060. See, e.g. Smith v. Bioworks, Inc., 2007 WL 273948, *4 n. 5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2007) (“Plaintiff generally alleges a claim for declaratory relief in the Complaint. Because this is a diversity action, and because plaintiff alleges that California law applies in this action, the court applies California declaratory relief statute to plaintiff’s claims.”) Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92 Filed 11/09/16 Page 9 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -10- POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 1. Alter-Ego Liability GIS cannot hide behind dreamGuard as a separate corporation to make an end run around the non-compete provision in the WDAs. It is clear from the undisputed evidence that dreamGuard’s alter ego is GIS. Prevailing on an alter ego theory requires proof of the following two prongs: “(1) that there be such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist and (2) that, if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, an inequitable result will follow.” Mesler v. Bragg Management Co., 39 Cal.3d 290, 300 (1985). With regard to the first prong, “[t]he alter ego test encompasses a host of factors: ‘[1] [c]ommingling of funds and other assets, failure to segregate funds of the separate entities, and the unauthorized diversion of corporate funds or assets to other than corporate uses … ; [2] the treatment by an individual of the assets of the corporation as his own … ; [3] the failure to obtain authority to issue stock or to subscribe to or issue the same … ; [4] the holding out by an individual that he is personally liable for the debts of the corporation … ; the failure to maintain minutes or adequate corporate records, and the confusion of the records of the separate entities … ; [5] the identical equitable ownership in the two entities; the identification of the equitable owners thereof with the domination and control of the two entities; identification of the directors and officers of the two entities in the responsible supervision and management; sole ownership of all of the stock in a corporation by one individual or the members of a family … ; [6] the use of the same office or business location; the employment of the same employees and/or attorney … ; [7] the failure to adequately capitalize a corporation; the total absence of corporate assets, and undercapitalization … ; [8] the use of a corporation as a mere shell, instrumentality or conduit for a single venture or the business of an individual or another corporation … ; [9] the concealment and misrepresentation of the identity of the responsible ownership, management and financial interest, or concealment of personal business activities … ; [10] the disregard of legal formalities and the failure to maintain arm’s length relationships among related entities … ; [11] the use of the corporate entity to procure labor, services or merchandise for another person or entity … ; [12] the diversion of assets from a corporation by or to a stockholder or other Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92 Filed 11/09/16 Page 10 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -11- POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 person or entity, to the detriment of creditors, or the manipulation of assets and liabilities between entities so as to concentrate the assets in one and the liabilities in another … ; [13] the contracting with another with intent to avoid performance by use of a corporate entity as a shield against personal liability, or the use of a corporation as a subterfuge of illegal transactions … ; [14] and the formation and use of a corporation to transfer to it the existing liability of another person or entity.’ … [¶] This long list of factors is not exhaustive. The enumerated factors may be considered ‘[a]mong’ others ‘under the particular circumstances of each case.’” Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Hancock, Rothert & Bunshoft, 69 Cal.App.4th 223, 249–250 (1999), citation omitted, quoting Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co., 210 Cal.App.2d 825, 838–840 (1962). No single factor is determinative. VirtualMagic Asia, Inc. v. Fil-Cartoons, Inc. 99 Cal.App.4th 228, 245 (2002). Here, there exist the several factors supporting a finding of alter ego. In 2011, GIS formed another company called CCF&D (“dreamGuard”) to sell dreamGuard mattress protection products. (Drugan Decl., Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pgs. 72-73, lns. 23-5; pgs. 171-172, lns. 25- 6.].) GIS and dreamGuard are owned by the same people. (Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pg. 37, lns. 14-25; pgs. 51-52, lns. 24-8; and Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pg. 160, lns. 11-20.].) GIS and dreamGuard have the same board of directors. (Drugan Decl., Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pg. 37, lns. 8-25; pg. 57, lns. 8-21.].) Frank Gibson is the President of both GIS and dreamGuard. (Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pg. 37, lns. 14-19; and Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts, No. --.]). Christopher Nolan is the Executive Vice President of both GIS and dreamGuard. (Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pgs. 38-39, lns. 12-13.] and Exh. B [Nolan dep., pg. 45, lns. 17-24.]). GIS and dreamGuard share employees including sales people. (Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pgs. 38-39, lns. 16-13.]; and Exh. B [Nolan dep., pg. 44, lns. 7-17; pg. 45, lns. 17-24; pg. 71, lns. 11-13; pgs. 72-74, lns. 25-3; and pgs. 104-106, lns. 25-2.]). GIS and dreamGuard share the same facility. (Drugan Decl., Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pg. 35, lns. 9-11.]). GIS and dreamGuard share the same computers. (Drugan Decl., Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pg. 167, lns. 6-9.]). Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92 Filed 11/09/16 Page 11 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -12- POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 As to the second prong, a plaintiff, in this case Counterclaimant, must prove “some conduct amounting to bad faith [that] makes it inequitable for the corporate owner to hide behind the corporate form.” Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court, 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 539 (2000); Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co., 210 Cal.App.2d 825, 838 (1962) [“bad faith in one form or another is an underlying consideration and will be found in some form or another in those cases wherein the trial court was justified in disregarding the corporate entity.”].) Here, GIS’ Chris Nolan testified that GIS formed dreamGuard for the purpose of selling dreamGuard products within its distribution territories subject to the WDAs with Guardian. (Drugan Decl., Exh. B [Nolan dep., pgs. 261-264, lns. 5-12; and Depo. Exh. 89, attached as Exhibit D to the Drugan Declaration.]). Certainly that illustrates bad faith conduct by GIS supporting a finding of alter ego. 2. GIS Sold and Continues to Sell dreamGuard Mattress Protection Products which Compete with the Guardian Mattress Protection Products It is undisputed that GIS has sold and continues to sell mattress protection products in its exclusive territories covered by the WDAs. (Drugan Decl., Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pgs. 159- 160, lns. 25-20.]). It is also undisputed that each of the WDAs contains a non-compete provision that provides: As another and further consideration for the execution of this Agreement, Distributor agrees that it will not compete with GPP by selling competing products during the term of this Agreement in its assigned area(s). “Competing products” mean product of comparable claims or qualities. Should GPP develop new products and prices, Distributor agrees not to sell products which compete with said new products. 3 Further, the WDAs include the following term: Should either party be in material breach or non-compliance of any of the terms of this Agreement, the other party may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice of such breach or non-compliance and the right to correct the breach. If the breach is not corrected or compliance is not made within sixty (60) days of the 3 “Pennsylvania Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-1, PP. 5-6, ¶ 10]); “Mid-Atlantic Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-2, p. 6, ¶ 11.].) “Ohio Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-3, pp. 5-6, ¶ 12.]); “Cook County Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-5, p. 6, ¶ 11.]); “Indiana Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-6, pp. 6-7,¶ 12.]); “Midwest Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-7, ¶ 10.]); “Alabama Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-9, ¶ 10.]); “Florida Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-10, ¶ 11.]); and “Tennessee Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-11, ¶ 10.].) Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92 Filed 11/09/16 Page 12 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -13- POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 date of such notice, this Agreement may be terminated at the end of said sixty (60) day period.4 dreamGuard’s mattress protection pad is a product that directly competes with Guardian’s mattress protection pad. As GIS’ and dreamGuard’s Executive Vice President Chris Nolan testified, both dreamGuard and Guardian sell entry level mattress pad. (Drugan Decl., Exh. B [Nolan dep., pg. 260, lns. 1-17.]). Further, GIS has admitted that it sells the dreamGuard mattress pads in their exclusive territories covered by the WDAs. (Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pgs. 263-264, lns. 21-12] and Exh B [Nolan dep., pgs. 104-106, 25-2; and pg. 258, lns. 17-20.]) This action is in direct violation of the WDAs’ non-compete provisions justifying an order from this court declaring not only that dreamGuard is the alter ego of GIS but also that GIS’ sale of mattress protection products in their own exclusive territories covered by the WDAs violates the WDAs’ non-compete provision justifying termination of the WDAs by Guardian. C. Guardian is entitled to a Judicial Declaration that electronic furniture protection plans are not identified in the WDAs as “Guardian Labeled Products” Each of the WDAs between GIS and Guardian provide GIS with the right to exclusive distribution of “Guardian Labeled Products” within a specified geographic area identified in each WDA. (RJN Exh. A [SAC, ¶ 12 and Exhibits 1-11; Dkt. #67, pg. 4; 67-1; 67-2, pg. 2; 67-3, pg. 2; 67-5, pg. 2; 67-6, pg. 2; 67-7, pg. 2; 67-9, pg. 2; 67-10, pg. 2; 67-11, pg. 2.].). “Guardian Labeled Distributor Product is a defined term in each WDA as5: For purpose of this Agreement, the term Guardian Labeled Distributor Product shall be construed to mean; Products that are produced or caused to be produced by GPP which are identified as Guardian Products on the front panel of the product label.6 4 “Mid-Atlantic Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-2, ¶ 16.].) “Ohio Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-3, ¶ 18.]); “Cook County Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-5, ¶ 16.]); “Indiana Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67- 6, ¶ 18.]); “Midwest Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-7, ¶ 16.]); “Alabama Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67- 9, ¶ 16.]); “Florida Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-10, ¶ 16.]); and “Tennessee Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-11, ¶ 16.].) 5 With the exception of the Pennsylvania Agreement that does not define the term Guardian Labeled Distributor Product. 6 “Mid-Atlantic Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-2, ¶ 7(c).].) “Ohio Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-3, ¶ 8.]); “Cook County Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-5, ¶7(c).]); “Indiana Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67- 6, ¶ 8.]); “Midwest Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-7, ¶ 8.]); “Alabama Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-9, ¶ 8.]); “Florida Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-10, ¶ 7(c).]); and “Tennessee Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-11, ¶ 8.].) Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92 Filed 11/09/16 Page 13 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -14- POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 The electronic furniture protection plans that Guardian administers do not come within the definition of “Guardian Labeled Distributor Product” as the electronic furniture protection plan is not a Guardian product, but a product of AIG/Chartis which underwrites the furniture protection plans. In fact, GIS’ President Frank Gibson admitted that the electronic furniture protection plans are AIG/Chartis products and only administered by Guardian. (Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pgs. 270-274, lns. 14-2].) Moreover, Frank Gibson, the President of GIS, admitted that he didn’t have an answer when asked whether the AIG warranties are subject to the distribution agreements or whether they even had a front panel. (Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pg. 274, lns. 6-13].) If GIS’ President, and one of its owners, cannot even affirmatively testify that the electronic furniture protection plans are subject to the WDAs, how can GIS make the claim that they are? Therefore, this court should issue an order declaring that the electronic furniture protection plans are not a “Guardian Labeled Distributor Product” subject to the WDAs. IV. CONCLUSION Defendants respectfully ask that the Court grant partial summary judgment in their favor as to the declaratory relief that Guardian seeks as to the first cause of action in the Counterclaim. Dated: November 9, 2016 GORDON & REES LLP By: /s/ Margaret M. Drugan_________ Calvin E. Davis Margaret M. Drugan Gary A. Collis Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, INC. and Defendant RPM WOOD FINISHES GROUP, INC. Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92 Filed 11/09/16 Page 14 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 3 II. BACKGROUND FACTS .......................................................................................................... 4 A. Non-Compete Provision.......................................................................................... 5 B. Guardian Labeled Products ..................................................................................... 7 III. LEGAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 8 A. The Summary Judgment Standard .......................................................................... 8 B. Guardian is entitled to a Judicial Declaration that GIS’ Sale of dreamGuard Mattress Protection Products in the Exclusive Territories Covered by the WDAs is Grounds to Terminate the WDAs .................................. 8 1. Alter-Ego Liability .................................................................................... 10 2. GIS Sold and Continues to Sell dreamGuard Mattress Protection Products which Compete with the Guardian Mattress Protection Products..................................................................................................... 12 C. Guardian is entitled to a Judicial Declaration that electronic furniture protection plans are not identified in the WDAs as “Guardian Labeled Products” ............................................................................................................... 13 IV. CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................... 14 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92 Filed 11/09/16 Page 15 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Arroyo v. Regents of University of California 48 Cal.App.3d 793, 795 (1975) ................................................................................................... 9 Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co. 210 Cal.App.2d 825, 838 (1962) ............................................................................................... 12 Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co. 210 Cal.App.2d 825, 838–840 (1962) ....................................................................................... 11 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986) ....................................................................................................... 8 Market Lofts Community Association v. 9th Street Market Lofts, LLC 222 Cal.App.4th 924, 932 (2014) ................................................................................................. 9 Mason & Dixon Intermodal, Inc. v. Lapmaster Int'l LLC 632 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................... 9 Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. 39 Cal.3d 290, 300 (1985) ......................................................................................................... 10 Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Hancock, Rothert & Bunshoft 69 Cal.App.4th 223, 249–250 (1999) ........................................................................................ 11 Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. 28 Cal.4th 888, 898 (2002) ........................................................................................................... 9 Smith v. Bioworks, Inc. 2007 WL 273948, *4 n. 5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2007) ................................................................... 9 Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 539 (2000) ................................................................................................ 12 Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. v. Leisure Time Productions, B.V. 17 F.3d 38, 39-40 (2nd Cir. 1994)................................................................................................. 9 VirtualMagic Asia, Inc. v. Fil-Cartoons, Inc. 99 Cal.App.4th 228, 245 (2002) ................................................................................................ 11 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 2201 ............................................................................................................................. 8 California Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 ....................................................................... 8, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ........................................................................................................................ 1, 8 1104957/30259702v.1 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92 Filed 11/09/16 Page 16 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 CALVIN E. DAVIS (SBN: 101640) cdavis@gordonrees.com MARGARET DRUGAN (SBN: 175324) mdrugan@gordonrees.com GARY A. COLLIS (SBN: 191800) gcollis@gordonrees.com GORDON & REES LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-5000 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Guardian Protection Products, Inc. and Defendant RPM Wood Finishes Group, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA G.P.P., Inc., d/b/a GUARDIAN INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS Plaintiff, vs. GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, INC. and RPM WOOD FINISHES GROUP, INC., Defendants. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00321 SKO SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF Date: December 21, 2016 Time: 9:30 a.m. Courtroom: 7 (Sixth Floor) Judge: Hon. Sheila K. Oberto Pursuant to Local Rule 260, Defendant and Counterclaimant Guardian Protection Products, Inc. (“Guardian”) hereby submits the following Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the first cause of action in the Counterclaim, together with references to evidentiary support. By reason of these facts, Guardian is entitled to partial summary judgment: /// Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 # UNDISPUTED FACT EVIDENCE 1 GIS and Guardian are parties to nine separate “Warehousing Distributor Agreements” (collectively, “WDAs”). RJN, Exh. A [SAC, ¶¶ 6-11; Dkt. #67, pgs. 2-4]. 2 Each WDA grants GIS exclusive distribution rights for Guardian Labeled Distributor Products (“Guardian Products”) within a specified geographic area. RJN Exh. A [SAC, ¶ 12 and Exhibits 1-11; Dkt. #67, pg. 4; 67-1; 67-2, pg. 2; 67-3, pg. 2; 67-5, pg. 2; 67-6, pg. 2; 67-7, pg. 2; 67-9, pg. 2; 67-10, pg. 2; 67-11, pg. 2.]. 3 Each WDA establishes a quota of Guardian Products that GIS must purchase. RJN, Exh. A [SAC, ¶¶ 7-10 and Exhibits 1-3, 5-7, & 9-11; Dkt. #67, pgs. 2-3; 67-1; 67-2, pg. 11; 67-3, pg. 11; 67-5, pg. 12; 67-6, pg. 14; 67-7, pg. 11; 67-9, pg. 12; 67-10, pg. 11; 67-11, pg. 8.]. 4 The first WDA, dated May 5, 1988, covers certain counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (“Pennsylvania Agreement”). RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-1.]. 5 The second WDA, dated December 6, 1988, covers the remaining counties in Pennsylvania, the State of Maryland, Washington D.C., and counties in Western New York (“Mid-Atlantic Agreement”). RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-2, pg. 11.]. 6 The third WDA, dated April 2, 1990, covers the State of Ohio (“Ohio Agreement”). RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-3, pg. 13.]. Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 # UNDISPUTED FACT EVIDENCE 7 The fourth WDA, dated August 30, 1988, covers Cook County, Illinois (“Cook County Agreement”). RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-4, pg. 12.]. 8 The fifth WDA, dated March 15, 1991, covers the State of Indiana (“Indiana Agreement”). RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-6, pg. 13.]. 9 The sixth WDA, dated May 5, 1998, covers the remaining counties in the State of Illinois, the State of Iowa, and counties in Eastern Missouri (“Midwest Agreement”). RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-7, pg. 7.]. 10 The seventh WDA, dated November 4, 1997, covers the State of Alabama (“Alabama Agreement”). RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-9, pg. 11.]. 11 The eighth WDA, dated November 17, 1988, covers the State of Florida (“Florida Agreement”). RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-10, pg. 14.]. 12 The ninth WDA, dated November 4, 1997, covers the State of Tennessee (“Tennessee Agreement”). RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-11, pg. 7.]. 13 GIS became a party to the WDAs on May 5, 1988 (Pennsylvania Agreement), December 6, 1988 (Mid- Atlantic Agreement), April 2, 1990 (Ohio Agreement), April 23, 2007 (Cook County Agreement, Indiana Agreement, and Midwest Agreement), and March 5, 2010 (Alabama Agreement, Florida Agreement, and Tennessee Agreement). Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts, No. 11. 14 Guardian became a party to the WDAs for the first time on February 1, 2000, more than two years after the most recent WDA was originally made, upon the APA’s effective date. Holman Declaration filed in support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 3; APA, ¶ 8.1. Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 3 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 # UNDISPUTED FACT EVIDENCE 15 CFDC, Inc. is a company created by GIS for the purpose of selling dreamGuard, a competing product in GIS’ exclusive territories covered by the WDAs. Drugan Decl., Exh. B [Nolan dep., pgs. 261-264, lns. 5-12]; and Depo. Exh. 89, attached as Exhibit D to the Drugan Declaration. 16 Each of the WDAs contains a non-compete provision that provides: As another and further consideration for the execution of this Agreement, Distributor agrees that it will not compete with GPP by selling competing products during the term of this Agreement in its assigned area(s). “Competing products” mean product of comparable claims or qualities. Should GPP develop new products and prices, Distributor agrees not to sell products which compete with said new products. “Pennsylvania Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-1, PP. 5-6, ¶ 10]); “Mid-Atlantic Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-2, p. 6, ¶ 11.].) “Ohio Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-3, pp. 5-6, ¶ 12.]); “Cook County Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-5, p. 6, ¶ 11.]); “Indiana Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-6, pp. 6-7,¶ 12.]); “Midwest Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-7, ¶ 10.]); “Alabama Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-9, ¶ 10.]); “Florida Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-10, ¶ 11.]); and “Tennessee Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-11, ¶ 10.].) Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 4 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 # UNDISPUTED FACT EVIDENCE 17 In 2011, GIS formed another company called CFDC, Inc. (“dreamGuard”) to sell dreamGuard mattress protection products. Drugan Decl., Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pgs. 72-73, lns. 23-5; pgs. 171-172, lns. 25-6.]. 18 GIS and dreamGuard are owned by the same people. Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pg. 37, lns. 14-25; pgs. 51-52, lns. 24-8; and Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pg. 160, lns. 11-20.]. 19 GIS and dreamGuard have the same board of directors. Drugan Decl., Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pg. 37, lns. 8-25; pg. 57, lns. 8-21.]. 20 Frank Gibson is the President of both GIS and dreamGuard. Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pg. 37, lns. 14-19; and Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts, No. 3. 21 Christopher Nolan is the Executive Vice President of both GIS and dreamGuard. Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pgs. 38-39, lns. 12-13.] and Exh. B [Nolan dep., pg. 45, lns. 17-24; and Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts, No. 4. 22 GIS and dreamGuard share the same employees including sales people. Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pgs. 38-39, lns. 16-13.]; and Exh. B [Nolan dep., pg. 44, lns. 7-17; pg. 45, lns. 17-24; pg. 71, lns. 11-13; Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 5 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6- SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 # UNDISPUTED FACT EVIDENCE pgs. 72-74, lns. 25-3; and pgs. 104-106, lns. 25-2.] 23 GIS and dreamGuard share the same facility. Drugan Decl., Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pg. 35, lns. 9-11.] 24 GIS and dreamGuard share the same computer system. Drugan Decl., Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pg. 167, lns. 6-9.] 25 GIS formed dreamGuard for the purpose of selling dreamGuard products within its distribution territories subject to the WDAs with Guardian. Drugan Decl., Exh. B [Nolan dep., pgs. 261-264, lns. 5-12]; and Depo. Exh. 89, attached as Exhibit D to the Drugan Declaration. 26 In 2011, GIS sold dreamGuard mattress protection products including a micro fleece mattress protector. Drugan Decl., Exh. B [Nolan dep., pgs. 243-244, lns. 24-2; pg. 248, lns. 12-17; pg. 260, lns. 1-17.] and Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pgs. 159-160, lns. 25-20; pgs. 171-172, lns. 25-6.] 27 In 2011, Guardian also sold a micro fleece mattress protector. Drugan Decl., Exh. B [Nolan dep., pgs. 243-244, lns. 24-2; pg. 248, lns. 12-17; pg. 260, lns. 1-17.] 28 In 2011, both dreamGuard and Guardian had an entry level mattress protection pad for sale at the time that dreamGuard launched its micro fleece mattress protector. Drugan Decl., Exh. B [Nolan dep., pg. 260, lns. 1-17.] Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 6 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7- SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 # UNDISPUTED FACT EVIDENCE 29 GIS continues to sell the dreamGuard product today. Drugan Decl., Exh. C [D. Gibson dep., pgs. 159-160, lns. 25-20.] 30 GIS did not geographically limit where they sold dreamGuard products. Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pgs. 263-264, lns. 21-12] and Exh B [Nolan dep., pgs. 104-106, 25-2; and pg. 258, lns. 17-20.] 31 GIS would sell dreamGuard products within the GIS territories covered by the WDAs. Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pgs. 263-264, lns. 21-12] and Exh B [Nolan dep., pgs. 104-106, 25-2; and pg. 258, lns. 17-20.] 32 GIS never obtained permission from Guardian to sell dreamGuard products within GIS’ exclusive territories identified in the WDAs. Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pgs. 266-267, lns. 12-11] and Exh B [Nolan dep., pg. 245, lns. 12-21. 33 GIS never received any document from Guardian indicating that Guardian was okay with GIS selling dreamGuard within its exclusive territories identified in the WDAs. Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pg. 268, lns. 6-10.] 34 Each of the WDAs contains a non-compete provision that provides: As another and further consideration for the execution of this Agreement, Distributor agrees that it will not compete with GPP by selling competing products during the term of this Agreement in its assigned area(s). “Competing “Pennsylvania Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-1, PP. 5-6, ¶ 10]); “Mid-Atlantic Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-2, p. 6, ¶ 11.].) “Ohio Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 7 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -8- SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 # UNDISPUTED FACT EVIDENCE products” mean product of comparable claims or qualities. Should GPP develop new products and prices, Distributor agrees not to sell products which compete with said new products. Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-3, pp. 5-6, ¶ 12.]); “Cook County Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-5, p. 6, ¶ 11.]); “Indiana Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-6, pp. 6-7,¶ 12.]); “Midwest Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-7, ¶ 10.]); “Alabama Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-9, ¶ 10.]); “Florida Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-10, ¶ 11.]); and “Tennessee Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-11, ¶ 10.].) 35 These WDAs include the following term: Should either party be in material breach or non- compliance of any of the terms of this Agreement, the other party may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice of such breach or non-compliance and the right to correct the breach. If the breach is not corrected or compliance is not made within sixty (60) days of the date of such notice, this Agreement may be terminated at the end of said sixty (60) day period. “Mid-Atlantic Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-2, ¶ 16.].) “Ohio Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-3, ¶ 18.]); “Cook County Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-5, ¶ 16.]); “Indiana Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-6, ¶ 18.]); “Midwest Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-7, ¶ 16.]); “Alabama Agreement” Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 8 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -9- SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 # UNDISPUTED FACT EVIDENCE (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-9, ¶ 16.]); “Florida Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-10, ¶ 16.]); and “Tennessee Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-11, ¶ 16.].) 36 “Guardian Labeled Distributor Product is a defined term in each WDA, with the exception of the Pennsylvania Agreement as: For purpose of this Agreement, the term Guardian Labeled Distributor Product shall be construed to mean; Products that are produced or caused to be produced by GPP which are identified as Guardian Products on the front panel of the product label. “Mid-Atlantic Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-2, ¶ 7(c).].) “Ohio Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-3, ¶ 8.]); “Cook County Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-5, ¶7(c).]); “Indiana Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-6, ¶ 8.]); “Midwest Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-7, ¶ 8.]); “Alabama Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-9, ¶ 8.]); “Florida Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-10, ¶ 7(c).]); and “Tennessee Agreement” (RJN, Exh. A [Dkt. #67-11, ¶ 8.].) 37 GIS’ President Frank Gibson admitted that the electronic furniture protection plans are AIG/Chartis products and only administered by Guardian. Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pgs. 270-274, lns. 14-2]. Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 9 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -10- SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIM’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 # UNDISPUTED FACT EVIDENCE 38 Frank Gibson, the President of GIS, admitted that he didn’t have an answer when asked whether the AIG warranties are subject to the distribution agreements or whether they even had a front panel. Drugan Decl., Exh. A [F. Gibson dep., pg. 274, lns. 6-13]. Dated: November 9, 2016 GORDON & REES LLP By: /s/ Margaret M. Drugan Calvin E. Davis Margaret Drugan Gary A. Collis Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, INC. and Defendant RPM WOOD FINISHES GROUP, INC. 1104957/30352850v.1 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-1 Filed 11/09/16 Page 10 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- DECLARATION OF MARGARET M. DRUGAN IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANTiS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIMiS FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 CALVIN E. DAVIS (SBN: 101640) cdavis@gordonrees.com MARGARET DRUGAN (SBN: 175324) mdrugan@gordonrees.com GARY A. COLLIS (SBN: 191800) gcollis@gordonrees.com GORDON & REES LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-5000 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Guardian Protection Products, Inc. and Defendant RPM Wood Finishes Group, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA G.P.P., Inc., d/b/a GUARDIAN INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS Plaintiff, vs. GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, INC. and RPM WOOD FINISHES GROUP, INC. Defendants. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00321 SKO DECLARATION OF MARGARET M. DRUGAN IN SUPPORT OF 008/69/;@P? MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIMPS FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF Date: December 21, 2016 Time: 9:30 a.m. Courtroom: 7 Judge: Hon. Sheila K. Oberto I, Margaret M. Drugan, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, and am a Senior Counsel with the law firm of Gordon & Rees, LLP, attorneys of record for defendant and counterclaimant Guardian Protection Products, Inc. %g>bO_RWO\h& and defendant RPM Wood Finishes Group, Inc., in the above-captioned action. I am familiar with the facts and circumstances in the above-entitled matter as they relate to this declaration, and if called upon, I could and would competently testify thereto. Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-2 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- DECLARATION OF MARGARET M. DRUGAN IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANTiS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE COUNTERCLAIMiS FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 6 3 3 W es t F if th S tr ee t, 5 2 n d F lo o r L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 7 1 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of selected pages from the deposition transcript of Frank Gibson taken on June 21, 2016. Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant GIS has agreed to withdraw the confidentiality designation it had placed on this transcript with respect to the pages included herein. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of selected pages from the deposition transcript of Christopher Nolan taken on June 23, 2016. Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant GIS has agreed to withdraw the confidentiality designation it had placed on this transcript with respect to the pages included herein. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of selected pages from the deposition transcript of Deborah Gibson taken on June 16, 2016. Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant GIS has agreed to withdraw the confidentiality designation it had placed on this transcript with respect to the pages included herein. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 89 is a true and correct copy of deposition exhibit 89 that is authenticated in the deposition transcript of Christopher Nolan taken on June 23, 2016, pgs. 261-264, lns. 5-12. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on November 9, 2016, in Los Angeles, California. /s/ Margaret M. Drugan Margaret M. Drugan, Declarant 1104957/30181935v.126954317 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-2 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 2 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 3 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 4 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 5 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 6 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 7 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 8 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 9 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 10 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 11 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 12 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 13 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 14 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 15 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 16 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 17 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 18 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 19 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 20 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 21 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 22 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 3 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 4 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 5 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 6 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 7 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 8 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 9 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 10 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 11 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 12 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 13 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 14 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 15 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 16 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 17 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 18 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 19 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 20 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 21 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 22 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 23 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 24 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 25 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 26 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 27 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 28 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-4 Filed 11/09/16 Page 29 of 29 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-5 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-5 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-5 Filed 11/09/16 Page 3 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-5 Filed 11/09/16 Page 4 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-5 Filed 11/09/16 Page 5 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-5 Filed 11/09/16 Page 6 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-5 Filed 11/09/16 Page 7 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-5 Filed 11/09/16 Page 8 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-5 Filed 11/09/16 Page 9 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-5 Filed 11/09/16 Page 10 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-5 Filed 11/09/16 Page 11 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-5 Filed 11/09/16 Page 12 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-5 Filed 11/09/16 Page 13 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-5 Filed 11/09/16 Page 14 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-5 Filed 11/09/16 Page 15 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-5 Filed 11/09/16 Page 16 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-5 Filed 11/09/16 Page 17 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-6 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 3 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-6 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 3 Case 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Document 92-6 Filed 11/09/16 Page 3 of 3