Cardinal

Cardinal v. Lupo

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 7, 20203:18-cv-00272California4,211 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHRISTOPHER CARDINAL, et al., Case No. 18-cv-00272-JCS

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

9 v. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS AND

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

10 JOHN LUPO, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 209, 211, 212 Defendants. 11

12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 This case arises from the sale of a kitchen remodeling business. Plaintiffs Christopher 15 Cardinal and Kitchen Experts of California, Inc. asserted claims for intentional misrepresentation, 16 negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract against Defendants John Lupo and Kitchen 17 Fantastic, Inc., among other claims that were not presented to the jury at trial.1 Lupo asserted a 18 counterclaim for breach of contract. After the Court largely denied Defendants’ motions for 19 summary judgment, see Order Re Mot. for Sanctions & Mots. for Summ. J. (dkt. 134),2 a jury 20 found Lupo liable for damages of $250,000 for intentional misrepresentation, did not reach the 21 alternative claim for negligent misrepresentation, and found in…

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.