Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04233/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04233-42/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

1 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

SHANNON CAMPBELL, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and 

MICHAEL STUART, 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK

13-CV-00233-LHK 

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

MARK ENNIS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and 

MICHAEL STUART, 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

This order supersedes ECF No. 361, which was filed in error. 

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, which 

Defendants filed on February 18, 2015. ECF No. 349. Plaintiffs opposed the motion on February 

19, 2015. ECF No. 355. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the relevant law, and the 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 362 Filed 02/19/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

record in this case, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ Motion for 

Judgment as a Matter of Law. 

In light of the Court’s decision to allow Plaintiffs to reopen their case in order to introduce 

the declaration of Keith Senglaub concerning Feld Entertainment, Inc’s (“FEI”) net worth, ECF 

No. 353, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion as to punitive damages as to FEI. Drawing “all 

reasonable evidentiary inferences in favor of the non-moving party,” the Court cannot say as a 

matter of law that “no reasonable jury could find for” Plaintiffs on their punitive damages claim 

against FEI. Ritchie v. United States, 451 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Regarding Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law as to punitive damages as to 

Michael Stuart (“Stuart”), Defendants point out that Plaintiffs have offered no evidence whatsoever 

of Stuart’s financial condition. ECF No. 349 at 1-2. “[A]n award of punitive damages cannot be 

sustained on appeal unless the trial record contains meaningful evidence of the defendant’s 

financial condition.” Adams v. Murakami, 813 P.2d 1348, 1349 (Cal. 1991). Plaintiffs’ opposition 

to Defendants’ motion is silent on Stuart’s financial condition, see ECF No. 355, and no such 

evidence was presented in Plaintiffs’ case in chief. Plaintiffs’ opposition only points to Plaintiffs’ 

request to reopen its case in chief in order to introduce the Senglaub declaration as evidence of 

FEI’s net worth. ECF No. 355 at 2. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for 

judgment as a matter of law as to Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims against Stuart. 

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion as to Campbell’s claim under California’s Unfair 

Competition Law (“UCL”). To establish standing under the UCL, a plaintiff must demonstrate that 

she “suffered injury in fact and . . . lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.” 

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. In other words, a plaintiff must “(1) establish a loss or 

deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and 

(2) show that that economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice or 

false advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.” Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct., 246 P.3d 877, 885 

(Cal. 2011). Based on the evidence admitted at trial, Campbell cannot do so. Indeed, Campbell 

testified that her only purported economic injury caused by FEI related to the purchase of 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 362 Filed 02/19/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

additional memory cards (i.e., Mini DVDs and Mini DVs) for a video camera she had stopped 

using prior to the August 7, 2012 animal walk in Oakland. See Trial Tr. 281:16-19 (Campbell 

testifying that, due to “incidents with Ringling,” she “had to spend more money on Mini DVD’s for 

the first camera that I used, also Mini DVs”); id. at 293:6-16 (Campbell testifying that at the 

August 7, 2012 animal walk in Oakland she was using a Sony camera that takes SD cards, not Mini 

DVDs or Mini DVs). With no evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find that Campbell 

sustained any economic injury as a result of FEI’s conduct at the August 7, 2012 animal walk in 

Oakland, Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Campbell’s UCL claim. 

The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion as to all other proffered bases. Drawing “all 

reasonable evidentiary inferences in favor of the non-moving party,” the Court cannot say as a 

matter of law that “no reasonable jury could find for” Plaintiffs on their Ralph Act and Bane Act 

claims, nor on Plaintiffs’ claims for emotional distress damages or Campbell’s aiding and abetting 

claim against Stuart. Ritchie, 451 F.3d at 1023. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 19, 2015 _______________________________ 

 LUCY H. KOH 

 United States District Judge 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 362 Filed 02/19/15 Page 3 of 3