Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Technologies, Inc., Dba Computerized Technology

Bad Law
840 F.2d 685·1988 WL 12961·10 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 802·1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 2191
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 24, 198887-5911California2,873 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sneed, J.

Eclat Computerized Technologies, Inc. (“Eclat”) appeals the district court’s refusal to vacate a default judgment entered against it in favor of Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. (DMS). We affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Eclat, a California corporation, sells a device that reduces energy consumption of home appliances. According to DMS, Eclat is associated with Computerized Technology (CT), a California partnership. DMS also claims that CT was to be a retailer of Eclat’s product and that it was its “understanding” that CT was “part of Eclat and that in operating the retail outlets, Eclat was merely doing business as Computerized Technology.” Affidavit of Jim Fothe-ringill, Vice-President of DMS, Supplemental Excerpt of Record at 9, ¶[ 4. DMS prepared a marketing proposal entitled “A Marketing Proposal for Eclat.” Eclat was apparently the entity that paid the bills submitted by DMS.

Either Eclat or CT entered into a contract with DMS, a Mississippi corporation, to market the energy saving device to consumers through mailings sent to residences in particular zip code areas. DMS claims that it carried out its duties under the contract and was paid consistently until a dispute…

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.