NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

03-1438, -1439, 1440, - 1441, -1442, -1443

DESIGNING HEALTH, INC., Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, and BERNARD COLLETT and ROBERT MACINTOSH COLLETT,Plaintiffs/Third Party DefendantsCross Appellants, and COLLETT VETERINARY CLINIC, INC. and COLLETT FAMILY TRUST, Third Party Defendants-Appellees,

v. UDO ERASMUS, Defendant/Third Party PlaintiffAppellant, and FLORA, INC., FLORA MANUFACTURI NG AND DISTRIBUTING, LTD., and THOMAS GREITHER, Defendants-Appellants, and GABRIEL LIGHTFRIEND, Defendant.________________________ __ DECIDED: June 1, 2005

________________________ __ Before LOURIE, CLEVENGER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges

. SCHALL, Circuit Jud g e

.

DECISION Udo Erasmus (“Erasmus”), Flora, Inc. and Flora Manufacturing and Distributing, Ltd. (the “Flora Companies”), and Thomas Greither (“Greither”) 1 appeal the decision of the United States Dist r ict Court for the Cent ra l District of Californi a denying t h eir motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) regar ding (1) a jury verdic t that they were liable for fraud; (2) the jury’s award of damages resulting fr om that fraud; and (3) the jury’s verdict that they were liabl e for cons piracy to c o mmit fraud. Des i gning Health, Inc. v. Erasmus , Nos. CV 98-4758, 99-9088 (C. D . Cal. May 2, 2003) (“ Order ”). Erasmus alone appeals (1) the district court’ s denial of his motion for JMOL regarding the jury’s verdict that he was liable for breac h of fiduciary duty; (2 ) the jury’s award of damages for that breach; and (3) the dist rict court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing his counterclaim for libel. Order , slip op. at 20. For their part, Designing Health, Inc. (“DH”) and Bernard Collett and Robert MacIntosh Collett (the “Colletts”) 2 cross-appeal with respect to the following: (1) the district court’s dismiss a l with prejudice of DH’s patent infringement claims, Desig n ing Health, Inc. v. Erasm u s , CV 98-4758 LGB (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2002); (2) the district

1 We refer to Erasmus, the Flora Co mpanie s, and Greither collec tively as “defendants.” 2 We refer to DH and the Colletts collectiv ely as “plaintiffs.” 03-1438,-1439,-1440, -1441,-1442,-1443 2court’s ruling that Greither was not subject to punitive damages as a result of fraud against DH, Designing Health, Inc. v. Erasmus , CV 98-4758 LGB (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2002); (3) the district court’s aw ard of attorney’s fees to Fl ora for defense of DH’s paten t infringement and unfair competition claims, Order , slip op. at 33; (4) the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to Erasmus for def endin g aga inst DH’s p a tent infringement and unfair competition c l aims, id. ; and (5) the denial of DH’s c l a i m against Erasmus for attorney’s fees, id. , slip op. at 30. For the reasons set forth below, we conc lude that the damages awards against Erasmus and the Flora Companies for fraud cannot stand. A ccordingly, the judgment against Er asmus in the amount of $132, 144 and t h e judgment against the Flora Companies in the amount of $1,280,000 for fraud are reversed. Also reversed is the judgment against Eras mus in t he amount of $747,144 f o r breach of fiduciary duty. In all other respects, the final judgment of the district court is affirmed. Thus, we affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part

. DISCUSSI ON
I. Between 1992 and 1994, the Colletts dev el oped an animal fo od supplement product based on flax and other oil seeds. T he Colletts formed DH in March of 1994, in order to manufacture and produc e the anim a l s upplem ent, and lat e r, a human version of the supplement. The flax seed product, bearing t he name “Udo’s Original,” was marketed by Udo Erasmus, an author of books on nutrition. Erasmus served as a consultant and a direc t or of DH unt il his resignation in J une of 1998.

03-1438,-1439,-1440, -1441,-1442,-1443 3Thomas Greither is the pr esident and owner of the F l or a Companies, whic h als o specialize in health food produc t s and s upplements. Erasmus worked sepa rately with the Flora Companies in order t o market similar “Omega 3” and “Omega 6” healt h supplement products under the name “Udo’s Choice.” DH and the Colletts brought suit against Erasmus, the Flora Companies, and Greither in the Central Distric t of California, asserting va rious claims. Two of those claims are relevant to this appeal. First, plaintiffs asserted a claim of fraud and conspiracy to commi t fraud, based on ev ents surrounding a March 1996 meeting between t he parties in Anaheim, Califo rnia. Fif t h Amended and Supplement a l Compla int at 9. Spec ifically , plaintiffs alleged that Eras mus, the Flora Companies, and Greither represented that “[i]f Pla i ntiff DH wou l d termi nate its present Canadian distributors, and if Plaintiff DH would terminate its distributors which sold DH products to health food stores in the Un ited States, . . . De fendants Flora Inc., and Flora Ltd., would, on a best-efforts basis, promote, exc l usiv ely distribute and sell Plaintiff DH’s products in Canada and exclus ively in the U. S. to healt h food stores.” Id. Plaintiffs also alleged that Erasmus, the Flora Com panies, and Greither represent ed that “[i]f Plaintiff DH would agree to ceas e using its present packaging design (used by Pla i ntiff DH from November 1993 into 1996), which inc l uded t he designation ‘Udo’s Original,’ and at times a pic t ure of Defendant Erasmus, and would agree to use the designation ‘Udo’s Choic e ’ on DH’s produ cts, Flora Inc., and Flor a Ltd., on an exclu s ive best-efforts basis, would se ll and p l ace DH’s produ cts in four thousand ( 4 ,000) health food stores whic h carried Flor a Ltd. and Flora Inc.’s produc ts in Canada and the United States.” Id. at 10. Plaintiffs further alleged that Greither promised that t he Flora Companies would be

03-1438,-1439,-1440, -1441,-1442,-1443 4selling 15,0 00 to 20,00 0 units per month of DH’s product by the end of 1997 an d 30,000 to 40,000 units per month by t he end of 1998. Plaintiffs asse rt that as a result of defendants ’ represent ations, DH entered into distribution agreements wit h the Flora Companies

. According to the complaint, however, defendant s’ real intent wa s: “(1) to hav e Plaintiff DH relinquish its independent goodwill in the t r ade designation ‘Ud o’s Origin al’ in whic h DH had expended c onsiderable ex pense and resource to develop in the marketplace, and (2) to have DH limit, in 1996 and 1997, its independent marketing and promotion of DH’s pro ducts, and (3) to have DH limit it s develop ment of its indep ende n t goodwill and sales, while Defendants secr etly undertook to develop products competitive to DH, which De fendants would then pass off as DH’s products, using the same formula, trade dress and labels of DH, claim i ng to retail c u stomers that DH wa s either ‘out of busines s,’ or that the Defend ants’ products ‘were in fact the replacemen t products for DH products.’” Fifth Amended and Supplemental Complaint at 12. In their complaint, DH and the Colletts also charged that Erasmus breached a fiduciary duty to DH. Plaintiffs alleged that, while a director of DH, Erasmus entered into agreements with the Flora Co mpanies under which he created, marketed, and developed products that direct ly competed with the products of DH. Plaintiffs als o alleged that, while a direct or of DH, Erasmus disclos ed proprietary confidential information to the Flora Companies and induc ed DH to inv e st considerable sums in advertising and promoting Erasmus’ likene ss in association with DH’s food supplemen t products. At the same time, plaintiffs a sserted, Erasmus entered into an agreement with Greither that provided t hat Greither and Erasmus woul d jointly own all rights in

03-1438,-1439,-1440, -1441,-1442,-1443 5Erasmus’ name and likeness f o r use in ma rketing food supplement products. Fifth Amended and Supplemental Co mplaint at 3-4. Plaintiffs asserted that the following reco ver y was warranted as a result of the alleged fraud: (i) profits t hat DH would have earned had it not entered into the distribution agreements with the Flora Companies (“lost profit s” theory); (ii) costs DH incurred in reliance on the al leged misrepresentations (“out-o f-pocket loss” theory); and (iii) profits that DH would h a ve earned un der the dis t ri bution ag reements into which it entered wit h the F l ora Companie s, had the representations u pon which plain t iffs relied been true (“benefit of the bargain” theory). As far as t he breach of fiduciary duty claim against Er asmus was concerned, DH as serted that it was entitled to recover: (i) payments it had made for the purpose of promoting Designing Health while us ing Erasmus as its spokesman; and (ii) those payments it had made to Erasm u s while he served as a director and manager of Designing Health. In due course, the case proceeded to tr ial on the fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and breach of fiduciary dut y claims. At trial, DH pr esented the follo wing evidence in support of its fraud damages claims: (1) t he testimony of Bernard Collett that once DH entered into the distribut ion agreements with the Flor a Companies, DH terminated its relationships with approximately four dis t ributors who had produced som e where in the range of $600,000 to $700,000 sales income during the six- month period prior to termination; (2) the testimony of Bernard Collett that DH’s gr oss profit margin on sale s to the Flora Companies under the distribut ion agreements was approximately $3 per unit; (3) evidence of DH’s gross sales figures for pet health supplement products for the years 1993 through 1997; and (4) evidence of DH’s total s a les of human health

03-1438,-1439,-1440, -1441,-1442,-1443 6supplement products for t he years 1995 through 2000. As far as the breac h of fiduciary duty damages claim was c oncerned, DH presented evidenc e indicati ng what it said it spent in co nnection with its relationship with Erasmus for the promotion of its health supplemen t products. This evidence was embodied in exhibits referred to as the “15000 Series.” Du ring trial, Bernard Collett described the 15000 Series as: a compilat i on of expenditures of Designing Health from inception in 1994 that were co sts to promote the goodwill of Udo Eras mus on our promotional material, our labels, his book prom otions, and all of the t h ings that we had done over those years to promote Designi ng Health, using him as the principal spokesman. Tr. at 1525. According to DH, t hese paym ents totaled $445,750. DH als o presented evidenc e of payments made to Erasmus as a director and manager of DH. According to DH, these payments totaled $245,818.
At the clos e of the evidence, the court gave the following instructions with res pect to fraud damages and damages for breach of fiduciary duty: FRAUD A ND DECEIT – DAMA GES – O U T OF P O CKET RULE If you find that a party is entitled to a verdict on its claim for fraud or negligent misrep resentation, you must then award that party damages, if any, caused by the fraud or negligent misrepresentation upon which you base your finding of liability. The amount of the aw ard should include: 1. Amounts actually and reason ably expended in reliance upon the fraud. 2. An amount which will compensate the party for any loss of profits or other gains which were reasonably anticipated and would have been earned by the party but for the fraud or negligent
03-1438,-1439,-1440, -1441,-1442,-1443 7misrepresentation. Court Instruction No. 42.
BRE A CH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY – ACTUAL DAMAGES If you find in favor of Designing Health, you must determine the total dollar amount of its damages, if any, that were caused by the breach of fiduciary duty by Erasmus. In determining suc h damages, you shall consider the following:
1. Any noneconomic losses or injuries whic h Designing Health has had or will probably have in the future;
2. Any economic losses whic h Designing Health has had or will probably h a ve in the future, including: (a) Anything of value or any pr ofit Erasmus received as a result of the breach of fiduciary duty; (b) Any loss of Designing Health’s property or assets caused by the breach of fi duciary duty; or (c) Any loss of profits or income whic h Designing Health could reasonably have expected to earn had the fiduciar y duty not been breached. Court Instruction No. 27. The jury returned verdicts in favor of DH and the Colletts and awarded f r aud damages against Eras mus in the amount of $132,144 (includi ng punitive damages) and against the Flora Companies in the amount of $1,280,000. It awarded breach of fiduciary duty damages against Erasmus in the amount of $747,144. As noted, the district court denied the defendants ’ post-trial JMOL moti ons.

03-1438,-1439,-1440, -1441,-1442,-1443 8II. On appeal, in addition to challenging the judgment of fraud against them, defendants argue that the award of damages in favor of the plaintiffs constituted error for several reasons. First, defendants contend t hat DH failed to offer any evidence of out-of-pocket losses. Second, they urge that DH is not entit led to benefit-of-the-bargain damages as a matter of law. Finally, they ar gue that DH did not have sufficient relevant operating history to establish lost profits for its health supplement product for humans, and that it failed to offer evidenc e sufficient to show: (1) what profits, if any, it would have made in the retail health food store market had it not entered into the distribution agreements with the Flora Com panies, and (2) that such profits would have been more than the profits that DH m ade from the Flora Companies’ marketing and sales

. In response, DH cont ends that, under Calif or nia law, it is entitled to benefit-ofthe-bargain damages. According to DH, its benefit-of-the- bargain damages ar e equal to its expectancy under t he distribut ion agreements. It argues that this expectancy can be determined based up on the followin g: (1) the testimony of Bern ard Collett that DH’s profit per unit of human product sold by the Flora def endants was $3.00; and (2) the Flora Companies ’ promise to sell 20,000 un its per m onth by th e end of 1997, an d 40,000 units per month by the e nd of 1998. Based on the fo regoing, DH argues that it is entitled to benefit-of-the-bargai n damages totaling $1,620,000.00. As for lost profits, at or al argument, counsel for DH arg ued that such profits could be establis hed with reasonab le certainty based on the evidence of DH’s gross sales figures for pet products and for human products in the years prior to entering into the distributorship agreem ents with the Flora Companies. In that regard, DH relied on the

03-1438,-1439,-1440, -1441,-1442,-1443 9testimony of Bernard Collett that DH te rminated relationships with distributors who provided s a les of $600,000 t o $700,000 for the six-m onth period pr ior to their termination. According to DH, this data demons trates that in the years prior to entering into the agreements, the ratio of sales of pet to human produc ts was two-to-one. Thus, according to DH, it is reasonable to c o nclude that this ratio would hav e remained constant had DH not entered into the distributorship agreement s, and it is possible t o extrapolate lost profits based on DH’s actua l sales of p e t products during the period of the agreements. Counsel fo r DH confir med at oral ar gument that the above “data points” are the only evidenc e in the record to support a lost profits damages award against the Flora Companies. 3
California’s general tort recovery stat ute sets forth the following me asure of damages:
BRE A CH OF OBLIGATION OTHER THA N CONT RACT. For the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, the measure of damages, except where otherwise expressly provided b y this code, is the amount which will compe n sate for all the detriment proximat ely caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not. Cal. Civ il Code § 3333; see also French v. Merrill Lynch , 784 F.2d 902 (9th ci r. 1986). Under California law, in cases involv ing fraud where property is not exchanged, damages under section 3333 are limited to the “actual losses suffered because of the misrepresentation,” regardless of whether a fiduciary relations hip existed between the parties. Gray v. Don Miller & As socs. , 674 P.2d 253, 256 (Cal. 1984) (quoting Gagne v. Betran , 275 P.2d 15 (Cal. 1954)). Under this measure of damages, a plaintiff can

3 DH fails on appeal t o point to any evidence that was presented in the district court in support of its out -of-pocket loss theory of damages. 03-1438,-1439,-1440, -1441,-1442,-1443 10recover “out-of-pocke t” losses and lost profits, but a plaintiff is ba rred from recovering “benefit-of-the-bargain” damages. See Christansen v. Roddy , 231 Cal. Rptr. 72, 78 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (Fifth District) (“The pr oper measure of tort damages is the ‘out-ofpocket’ measure; successful tort plaintiffs are not entit led to hav e damages computed on a contract or ‘benefit -of-the-bargain,’ theory.” (citati on omitted)); Kenly v. Ukegawa , 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 771, 774 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (First District) (“If the ‘wrong’ had not been done, Kenly presumably would not have borrowed funds t o purchase the note; if he inc u rred damages f r om that tr ansaction, he is entitled to be m a de whole. However, Kenly is not entitled to pl acement in a bet ter position than he would hav e occupied absent the fraud.”); Eckert Cold Storage, Inc. v. Behl , 943 F. Supp. 1230, 1234 (E.D. Cal. 199 6) (“Plaintiffs’ position is not supported by the main line of case authority. Under this precedent, section 3333 does not pr ovide for benefit of the bargain recovery, even if Grant acted as plaintiffs’ fiduciary. . . . Rather, plaintiffs’ recovery must be limit ed to the loss es proximately caused by Grant ’s alleged misrepresent ations: the damages awarded s hould plac e plaintiffs in the pos ition they would have occupied had the misrepresentations not occurred. ” (citations omitted)). Also under California law, it is well established that damages must be proven with “reasonable certainty” in bot h contract and tort cases. See Vestar Dev. II, LLC v. Gen. Dynamics Corp. , 249 F.3d 958, 961 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Mann v. Jackso n , 296 P.2d 120, 123 (Cal. 1956). Moreover, in order to recover damages for loss of profits, there must be a “s atisfactory basis for estimati ng what the probable earning s would hav e been had ther e been no tort. If no such basis exists, . . . it may be necessary to deny such recovery.” Natural So da Pro d s., Co. v. City of L o s Ange les ,

03-1438,-1439,-1440, -1441,-1442,-1443 11143 P.2d 12, 17 (Cal. 1943). Generally, the ev idence must make reasonably certain the nature, occurrence, and extent of loss of pr ospective profits. Piscitelli v. F r iedenberg , 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 88, 114 (C al. Ct. App. 2001). We conclude that the evi denc e presented by DH in support of the fraud damage s award is insufficient as a matt er of law. First, as indic a ted, under California law, DH is not entitled to recover benef it-of-the-bargain damages. Second, DH has failed to establish lo st profits with r easonable certainty. The test im ony of M r . Collett c oncerning the terminated distributors is insuf f icient for a number of reasons. As noted by the Flora Companies , the testi m ony fails to establ ish that DH terminated the dis t ributors in reliance on the distribution agree ments. Most importantly, it fails to establish the profits , if any, that DH derived from sales to the te rminated distributors. T he evidence of DH’s gross sales figures for pet products and for human products in the y e ars prior to entering into the distributorsh ip agreements is also insuffi cient to establish damages

. This evidence fails to establish the profits , if any, that DH derived from sales of the human products prior to entering into the distribution agreements. In addition, DH offered no lay or expert testimony to estab lish prospective sales. Merely pointing to past sales is not enough, espec ially giv en t he fact that DH had only recently entered into the market for sales of its product for humans. Because the record evidence does not sufficiently support the jury’s fraud damages award against def endants, the district court’s deni al of J M OL as to the fraud damages award is reversed. As noted, Erasmus also appea ls the judgment against him in the amount of $747,144 for breach of fiduciary duty. In challenging this damages award, Erasmu s

03-1438,-1439,-1440, -1441,-1442,-1443 12argues that the 15000 Series was improperly admi tted under Federal Rule o f Evidenc e 1006. This is so, according t o Erasmus, because DH failed to establish that the underlying materials upon which t he summaries are bas ed were admissible in evidenc e , and because DH failed to make the material s reasonab ly available to Erasmus. In response, DH contends that the exhibi ts in the 15000 Series were properly admitted into evidenc e as summaries under Rule 1006 because they are based on evidenc e that was otherwise admissible at tr ial and that was reasonably available to Erasmus. DH argu es that the testim ony of Marianne Rens ing, DH’s accountant, authenticates and establis hes a foundation for the accounti ng documents that underlie the 15000 Series. With respec t to Exhibit 15002, DH points to Ms. Rensing’s testimony that she routinely and in t he course of business supervised the c r eation of t he chec k registers identified as Exhi bits 13000 and 13001, which Bernar d Collett later testified he used to create the summary identified as Exhibi t 15002. Tr. at 1527. DH fails to identify the check registers underlying the remain ing exhibits of the 15000 Series. Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 provides in relevant par t: The contents of voluminous wr itings, recordings, or photographs which cannot conv eniently be examined in court may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation. The originals, or duplicates, shall be made available f o r examination or copying, or both, by other parties at reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in court. Fed. R. Ev id. 1006. Under Ni nt h Circuit law, “a proponent of a summary exhibit must establish a foundation that (1 ) the underly ing materials on wh ic h the summary exhibit is based are admissible in evidence, and (2) those underlying materials were made available to the opposing party for inspection. ” Amarel v. Connell , 102 F.3d 1494, 1516

03-1438,-1439,-1440, -1441,-1442,-1443 13(9th Cir. 1997) (citing Paddack v. Dave Christensen, Inc. , 745 F.2d 1254, 1259 (9th Cir

. 1984)). “The purpos e of the availability r equirement is ‘to give the oppos ing party an opportunity to verify the reliability and a ccuracy of the summary prior to trial.’” Id. (citing Paddack , 745 F.2d at 1261). Failur e to make available th e materials underlying a summary exhibit, renders that summary exhibit inadmis sible, Id. (c iting United States v. Miller , 771 F.2d 1219, 1238 (9th Cir. 1985)). Exhib i t 15 002 purpor tedly is a summary of DH’s e x pe nditure s, by check, in connection with the p r omotion o f DH’s hea lth supp le ment pr oducts by Erasmus. The exhibit is based on Exhibits 13000 and 1300 1—evidenc e that was otherwise admissible and that was made available to Erasmus. Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court abused its discr etion in admitting Exhi bit 15002 into evidence under Rule 1006. With respect to the remaining exhibits in the 15000 Series, DH assert s that the exhibits were properly based on acc o unting doc uments authenticated by Ms. Rens ing. Howev e r, as noted above, DH fails to ident if y the particular accounting docu ments upon which the summaries are based. In addition, it offers no support from the record that these documents were made available to Er asmus. Finally, the admission of the remaining exhibits in the 15000 Series was clearly pr ejudici al to Erasmus given DH’s nearly singular relianc e on the 15000 Series. See Cit y of Long Beac h v. Standard Oil Co. , 46 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 19 95) (noting that ev identiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion and should not be reversed absent some prejudice). The evidence presented by DH is insuffi cient as a matter of law to support the breach of fiduciary duty damages award. First, even if the entire 15000 Series had been prop erly admitted by the di strict court, the fact still remains that DH faile d to

03-1438,-1439,-1440, -1441,-1442,-1443 14present any evidence, in the form of lay or ex pert testimony, as to wh y all of the costs of promoting DH’s h ealt h supplement products in conn ection with Erasmus constitute economic losses resulting from Erasmus’s breach of fiducia ry dut y. Second, DH failed to present any evidence to explain why pay ments made to Erasmus as a dir e ctor and manager of DH constit u te economic losses resu lting from Erasmus’s breac h of fiduc i ary duty. Because the record evidenc e does not su fficiently support the jury’s breach of fiduciary duty damages award against Eras mus, t he di strict court’s deni al of JMOL as to the damages award is reversed.
III. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the damages awards against Eras mus and the F l ora Companies for fraud in t he amount of $132, 144 and $1,280,000, respectively, as well as the damages awar d agains t Erasmus for breac h of fiduc iary duty in the am ount of $747,144. We have carefully considered, but have not found persuasive, all other arguments made by t he parties regarding t he remaining aspects of the dist rict court’s final dec ision. Thus, this court affirms: (1 ) the district court’s denial of JMOL with respect to the jury’s verdict of liability against Erasmus and the Flora Companies for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, and against Erasmus for breach of fiduciary duty; (2) the district court’s grant of summary judgment dis m issing Erasmus’s c ounterclaim for libel; (3) the district court’s dismi ssal with prejudice of DH’s patent infringement claims; (4) the distric t court’s exclusion of Greither from punitive damages; (5) the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to the Flora Companies f o r defending against

03-1438,-1439,-1440, -1441,-1442,-1443 15DH’s paten t infringement and u n f air competition claims ; (6) the district court’ s award of attorney’s fees to Erasmus for defending against DH’s patent in fringement and unfair competition claims; and (7) the denial of DH’s cl aim for attorney’s fees against Erasmus. This court also denies the Flora Companies ’ motion for a ttorney’s fees incurred in the defens e of DH’s c r oss-appeal of the dist rict court’s dismissal wit h prejudice of DH’s patent infringement claims. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court is affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part

. Each party shall bear its own costs.

03-1438,-1439,-1440, -1441,-1442,-1443 16