Taylor

Swingless Golf Club Corp. v. Taylor

Good Law
732 F. Supp. 2d 899·2010 WL 3081255·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79681
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 6, 2010C 08-05574 WHACalifornia7,061 words

Opinion

Opinion

Alsup, J.

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTERCLAIMS

INTRODUCTION

The Court once again turns its attention to the “swingless” golf club: a pyrotechnic device that uses explosive charges, a wedge-shaped piston, and a trigger to blast golf balls hundreds of yards down a fairway. Designed for golfers who cannot (or would rather not) swing, this intriguing invention — which looks like a traditional golf club except that it is loaded with gunpowder — stands at the heart of this dispute.

The instant motion targets the four remaining counterclaims in this action. In short, counterdefendants Swingless Golf Corporation (“SGC”), James DePorche, and Joyce Taylor move for summary judgment on counterclaims of fraud, conversion, corporate waste, and breach of fiduciary duty asserted by counterclaimants Roy Taylor, James Stowell, Jack Galanti, Mike Stringer, and Steve Fluke. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is Granted.

STATEMENT

1.The Invention

In 1992, defendant and counterclaimant Roy Taylor created several inventions relating to the “ballistic impeller club.” The ballistic impeller club was designed for people who wanted to participate in the game of golf but lacked the requisite…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.