Envases De Hoja v. Hearthside Baking Co

Case Information

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

| Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge | Milton I. Shadur | Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | CASE NUMBER | 99 C 4040 | DATE | 8/15/2001 | | CASE
TITLE | Zapata Hermanos Sucesores vs. Hearthside Baking Co. | | |

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) $◻$ Filed motion of [ use listing in "Motion" box above.] (2) $◻$ Brief in support of motion due $$ . (3) $◻$ Answer brief to motion due $$ . Reply to answer brief due $$ . (4) $◻$ Ruling/Hearing on $$ set for $$ at $$ . (5) $◻$ Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on $$ set for $$ at $$ . (6) $◻$ Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on $$ set for $$ at $$ . (7) $◻$ Trial[set for/re-set for] on $$ at $$ . (8) $◻$ [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to $$ at $$ . (9) $◻$ This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to] $◻$ FRCP4(m) $◻$ General Rule $21◻$ FRCP41(a)(1) $◻$ FRCP41(a)(2). (10) [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Lenell's motion to alter judgment or for new trial is denied in its entirety. (84-1, 84-2) (11) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

| ZAPATA HERMANOS | SUCESORES, S.A., | ) | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | | | ) | | | Plaintiff, | ) | | v. | | ) | | | | ) | | HEARTHSIDE BAKING CO., INC., | | ) | | etc., | | ) | | | | ) | | | Defendant. | ) |

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This Court's lengthy July 19, 2001 memorandum opinion and order ("Opinion") rejected virtually all of the alternative Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 50 and 59 motions that had been filed by losing litigant Hearthside Baking Co., Inc. d/b/a Maurice Lenell Cooky Co. ("Lenell") after the June 19 return of a jury verdict in this action. In part the Opinion explained the reasons for the entry of a revised final judgment in favor of Zapata Hermanos Sucesores, S.A. ("Zapata") and against Lenell. As might have been expected in light of Lenell's dog-in-the-manger approach to this entire litigation, its counsel has since filed a second Rule 59 motion attacking the revised judgment. Zapata has in turn responded to that motion.

Zapata's presentation is entirely persuasive, and there is no need for any discussion of the issues beyond that presentation. Instead this Court flat-out rejects Lenell's meritless position that the $\$4,848$ remittitur on the label claim, discussed in Opinion at 5-6, is an impermissible additur. And as

for Lenell's objection to this Court's reduction in the jury's interest award (again a remittitur to which Zapata has agreed), Zapata is entirely right in pointing out that if pursued to its logical conclusion, Lenell's present argument would have granted it no relief from the amount awarded by the jury.

Accordingly Lenell's motion is denied in its entirety. Because Lenell has noticed up a motion for presentment on August 17, in which it is seeking a stay of enforcement and added time within which it must file a supersedeas bond under Rule 62, this opinion is being issued in part to advised Lenell's counsel that a suitably short time--and no more--will be granted in that respect, for Lenell has already had nearly two months since the jury verdict to make any necessary arrangements for that purpose.

Date: August 15, 2001

Case Details

Case Name: Envases De Hoja v. Hearthside Baking Co

Court Name: District Court, N.D. Illinois

Date Published: Aug 15, 2001

Citation: 1:99-cv-04040

Docket Number: 1:99-cv-04040

Court Abbreviation: N.D. Ill.