United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
HOME PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL-NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff,
MICHEL BUCHBUT, a/k/a MICHEL BOHBOT, an individual; DLDM INVESTMENT LIMITED, a a corporation organized under the laws of Switzerland; BEST PLASTICS, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company; and BEST PLASTICO, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendants.
Maynard Jr. One of Its Attorneys
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT FEE
PETITION AND TO AMEND JUDGMENT
Honorable Andrea Wood, Judge.
HOME PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL-NORTH AMERICA, INC.
(“HPI”) by its attorneys, Kent Maynard &
Associates LLC, hereby moves this Court for entry of an Order
permitting HPI to supplement it s previously-filed fee
petition filed on November 30, 2015, and amending the
Judgment in a Civil Case entered at the direction of
this Court on November 16, 2015. In support thereof, HPI
states as follows:
cause arises fro m an American Arbitration Association
(“AAA”) arbitration initiated by one of the
Defendants in the instant civil action, DLDM Investment
filed an arbitration demand seeking damages for alleged
breaches of two agreements (“the Agreements”),
one entitled Agreement For Transfer And Use Of
Plastic Injection Molds And Royalty, dated July
6, 2011 (“the Royalty Agreement”) and the other
entitled, Injection M old Purchase Agreement entered
into during November 2011 (“the Purchase
purpose of the two Agreements was to transfer certain plastic
injection molds and related intellectual property from DLDM
to HPI for the exclusive use of HPI in the manufacture of
certain plastic goods for sale to customers.
the AAA Arbitration, HPI denied that it breached the
Agreements and filed a counterclaim for various breaches of
the Agreements against DLDM and the other Defendants named in
this action, Michel Buchbut, Best Plastics, LLC, and Best
Plastico, LLC, all of which were alleged to be jointly and
severally liable for the breaches alleged.
Under the Royalty Agreement and a Purchase Agreement, a
prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable
attorney's fees and costs incurred in respect of any
recited in the Final Award, a duly noticed Arbitration
Hearing was convened on May 13, 2014.
After the Arbitration hearing, an arbitration award was
entered in Plaintiffs favor by means of a Final Award dated
as of June 25, 2014.
true and correct copy of the Final Award is attached hereto
as Exhibit 1.
Final Award states that a ll of the claims of DLDM were
Final Award awarded to Plaintiff a total of $136, 681.80,
consisting of the following amounts:
Attorney's fees and costs