Garter-Bare Company, an Unincorporated Association (A Limited Partnership), and Knut L. Bjorn-Larsen, and v. Munsingwear Inc., a Corporation

This action was filed by Garter-Bare, a limited partnership, and by Larsen, its general partner, in California Superior Court on January 20,1972, and was then removed to the United States District Court where summary judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, Munsingwear. In Garter-Bare v. Munsingwear, 650 F.2d 975 (9th Cir.1980), (hereafter “Garter-Bare I”) we reversed the summary judgment on the ground that there were triable issues of fact that precluded its use. On remand, the jury rendered its verdict for the plaintiffs granting them $3,000 for breach of contract, royalties (in an amount to be determined) of 7% for patent infringement, $500,000 for trade secret misappropriation, and $15 million compensatory damages and an additional $15 million as punitive damages, for fraud.

Munsingwear moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for new trial and thereafter made a second motion for new trial, now alleging the discovery of new evidence. The district judge granted judgment n.o.v. as to all but the fraud claim, or a new trial if the judgment n.o.v. were overturned. He granted a new trial on the fraud claim, but thereafter granted summary judgment in favor of…

723 F.2d 707 221 U.S.P.Q. 751 GARTER-BARE COMPANY, an unincorporated association (a limited partnership), and Knut L. Bjorn-Larsen, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MUNSINGWEAR INC., a corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 82-5270, 82-5439. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 26, 1983. Decided Jan. 13, 1984. John E. Wagner, Glendale, Cal., Lillian Tomich, Robert W. Driscoll, Driscoll & Tomich, San Marino, Cal., for plaintiffs and appellants. Lawrence C. Brown, Faegre & Benson, Minneapolis, Minn., Leonard Janofsky, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Los Angeles, Cal., Douglas J. Williams, Merchant, Gould, Smith, Edell, Welter & Schmidt, Dwight H. Oglesby, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before CHAMBERS, ELY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges. CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge: 1 This action was filed by Garter-Bare, a limited partnership, and by Larsen, its general partner, in California Superior Court on January 20, 1972, and was then removed to the United States District Court where summary judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant,…

dissenting in part:

I respectfully dissent from the portion of the majority opinion that reverses the District Court’s rulings on the fraud claims, trade secret claims, and claims for tortious interference with prospective business advantage.

In my judgment, the District Court was correct in all respects. The conclusion of the trial reflected an aberration of justice which the District Court quickly and decisively corrected. The record reveals that the plaintiffs fashioned this complex action, adorned with allegations of fraud, trade secret misappropriation, patent infringement and tortious interference, from a simple $3000.00 contract dispute over the interpretation of the Agreement and a claim of patent infringement. The jury, their collective vision blurred by a smokescreen of nonexistent torts and plaintiffs’ pleas for sympathy, overlooked the crucial points and awarded an outrageous and unsupportable verdict in excess of $31,000,000.00, a sum equal to nearly 80% of Munsingwear’s 1979 total net worth. Unlike the jury’s verdict, the District Court’s rulings on Munsingwear’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“judgment n.o.v.”), and post-trial motion for summary…