I-CA Enterprises, Inc. v. Palram Americas, Inc.
185 Cal. Rptr. 3d 24
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- I-CA Enterprises sues Palram Americas and Plasgad for tortious interference with contract and related claims after being cut out of supply relationships.
- I-CA was exclusive North American distributor for Palram’s plastic closure strips and Ace Hardware tubs through a 2005 exclusivity/marketing agreement with Plasgad.
- Palram allegedly knew of I-CA’s contract with Plasgad and interfered to disrupt that relationship, while Plasgad later terminated its deal with I-CA and began direct dealings with Palram.
- Patented plastic closure strips and Palram’s attempts to avoid exclusivity are central; Palram allegedly looked for a secondary supplier while knowing of the patent, and Plasgad later also engaged Palram.
- I-CA’s damages were split between interference with the I-CA/Plasgad contract and with the I-CA/Palram contract; Palram was awarded punitive damages, later reduced to zero by JNOV, while Plasgad’s punitive damages claim was nonsuited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joint and several liability for interference | I‑CA sought joint and several against Palram and Plasgad | Liability should be apportioned; no interference with own contract | No joint and several liability; damages apportioned between defendants |
| Punitive damages against Palram | Evidence showed malice/oppression/fraud supporting punitive damages | Insufficient evidence; damages excessive; due process concerns | JNOV granted; punitive damages against Palram vacated |
| Punitive damages against Plasgad; prevailing party | Plasgad liable for punitive damages; prevailing party status not properly determined | Plaintiff failed to prove net worth; Phase II nonsuit appropriate | Nonsuit on punitive damages as to Plasgad; Plasgad prevailing party against I-CA for cost shifting affirmed |
| Discovery of financial information for punitive damages | Pretrial discovery of Plasgad’s net worth warranted | Foreign defendant; lack of jurisdiction; discovery tardy | No error in denying discovery; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Kesmodel v. Rand, 119 Cal.App.4th 1128 (Cal. App.2d Dist. 2004) (joint and several liability for concerted tortfeasors; indivisible injuries considered)
- Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 7 Cal.4th 503 (Cal. 1994) (contracting party cannot be liable for interference with its own contract; separate interference only)
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 50 Cal.3d 1118 (Cal. 1990) (elements of intentional interference with contract; induces breach actionable)
- Gardeley v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 14 Cal.4th 618 (Cal. 1996) (expert may rely on inadmissible evidence only to form opinion; not as independent proof)
- Kerner v. Superior Court, 206 Cal.App.4th 84 (Cal. App.4th Dist. 2012) (pretrial punitive damages discovery; substantial probability standard)
- Issod, 78 Cal.App.4th 597 (Cal. App.4th Dist. 2000) (trial court may order post-trial production of financial records for punitive damages)
- Beecroft, 608 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1979) (Dun & Bradstreet reports; business records exception considerations)
- Connor v. Grosso, 41 Cal.2d 229 (Cal. 1953) (apportionment of damages among independent tortfeasors)
- California Orange Co. v. Riverside Portland Cement Co., 50 Cal.App.4th 522 (Cal. App.2d Dist. 1920) (apportionment of damages where concurrent but separate torts)
- Griffith v. Kerrigan, 109 Cal.App.2d 637 (Cal. App.2d Dist. 1952) (seepage/agency cases supporting apportionment of damages)