Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

United States 15 August 2001 Federal District Court [Illinois] (Zapata Hermanos v. Hearthside Baking)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010815u1.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Case text

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20010815 (15 August 2001)

JURISDICTION: United States [federal court]

TRIBUNAL: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division [federal court of 1st instance]

JUDGE(S): Milton I. Shadur

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 99 C 4040

CASE NAME: Zapata Hermanos Sucesores, S.A. v. Hearthside Baking Co., Inc., d/b/a Maurice Lenell Cooky Company

CASE HISTORY: We publish nine parts of the record of these proceedings:
-      8 December 2000, Ruling on pre-trial motions
-      18 July 2001, Memorandum opinion and judgment order [Court's ruling on buyer's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial]
-      19 July 2001, Supplement to Memorandum opinion and judgment order [Supplement to Court's opinion dated 18 July 2001]
-      15 August 2001, Memorandum opinion and order [Ruling on second motion by buyer attacking the judgment] [Text presented below]
-      22 August 2001, Memorandum opinion and order [Ruling on seller's motion for an award of attorney's fees: ruling on seller's motion advanced against buyer's litigation counsel]
-      28 August 2001, Memorandum opinion and order [Ruling on seller's motion for an award of attorney's fees: ruling on seller's motion advanced against buyer]
-      12 February 2002, Memorandum opinion and order [Ruling related to amount of attorney's fees]
-      13 March 2002, Memorandum opinion and order [Ruling on amount of attorney's fees]

The most recent proceeding in this case is an appellate ruling by the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down on 19 November 2002. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the District Court's ruling on attorneys' fees. A petition for certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court and denied.

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Mexico (plaintiff)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: United States (defendant)

GOODS INVOLVED: Cookie tins


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes [In the final pre-trial order, the parties agreed that the CISG governed]

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: No evaluation of CISG provisions at this phase of the proceedings

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

Unavailable

Descriptors: Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents


Editorial remarks

Go to Case Table of Contents


Citations to case abstracts, texts, and commentaries

CITATIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable

(b) Other abstracts

Unavailable

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (English): Text presented below; see also 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12403 and 2001 WL 936112 (ND. III)

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents


Case text

Zapata Hermanos Sucesores, S.A. v. Hearthside Baking Co., Inc., etc.

No. 99 C 4040

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

Decided: 15 August 2001

[]

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This Court's lengthy July 19, 2001 memorandum opinion and order ("Opinion") rejected virtually all of the alternative Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 50 and 59 motions that had been filed by losing litigant Hearthside Baking Co., Inc. d/b/a Maurice Lenell Cooky Co. [buyer] after the June 19 return of a jury verdict in this action. In part the Opinion explained the reasons for the entry of a revised final judgment in favor of Zapata Hermanos Sucesores, S.A. [seller] and against [buyer]. As might have been expected in light of [buyer's] dog-in-the-manger approach to this entire litigation, its counsel has since filed a second Rule 59 motion attacking the revised judgment. [Seller] has in turn responded to that motion.

[Seller's] presentation is entirely persuasive, and there is no need for any discussion of the issues beyond that presentation. Instead this Court flat-out rejects [buyer's] meritless position that the $4,848 remittitur on the label claim, discussed in Opinion at 5-6, is an impermissible additur. And as for [buyer's] objection to this Court's reduction in the jury's interest award (again a remittitur to which [seller] has agreed), [seller] is entirely right in pointing out that if pursued to its logical conclusion, [buyer's] present argument would have granted it no relief from the amount awarded by the jury.

Accordingly [buyer's] motion is denied in its entirety. Because [buyer] has noticed up a motion for presentment on August 17, in which it is seeking a stay of enforcement and added time within which it must file a supersedeas bond under Rule 62, this opinion is being issued in part to advised [buyer's] counsel that a suitably short time -- and no more -- will be granted in that respect, for [buyer] has already had nearly two months since the jury verdict to make any necessary arrangements for that purpose.

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated December 15, 2003
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography