Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

13-2451 - Select Comfort Corporation v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
13-2451 - Select Comfort Corporation v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al
December 23, 2013
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Select Comfort's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 39) is GRANTED IN PART, and DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. Select Comfort's Motion for Preliminary Injunction Mattress Firm is GRANTED with respect to claims for false advertising and Mattress Firm is immediately enjoined from making the following representations to consumers regarding Select Comfort and its products or services, including the Sleep Number brand: (see Order for additional details) (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 12/23/2013. (BJS) Modified text on 1/2/2014 (TSS).
September 28, 2016
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. 1. Tempur-Pedic's Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Joseph D. Kenyon (Doc. No. 268) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. The Court excludes Kenyon's alternative Appendix IX model of disgorgement damages and all related testimony. b. All other remaining testimony is presumptively admissible assuming proper foundation is laid and subject to objections at trial. 2. Mattress Firm's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Joseph D. Kenyon (Doc. No. 312) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. The Court excludes Kenyon's testimony on lost profits; b. The Court excludes Kenyon's alternative Appendix IX model of disgorgement damages and all related testimony; c. All other remaining testimony is presumptively admissible assuming proper foundation is laid and subject to objections at trial. 3. Mattress Firm's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Hal Poret (Doc. No. 298) is DENIED and Poret's testimony is presumptively admissible assuming proper foundation is laid and subject to objections at trial. 4. Defendants Joint Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Hal Poret (Doc. No. 281) is DENIED and Poret's testimony is presumptively admissible assuming proper foundation is laid and subject to objections as noted in the order.5. Defendants' Joint Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Erich Joachimsthaler (Doc. No. 307) is DENIED and Joachimsthaler's testimony is presumptively admissible assuming proper foundation is laid and subject to objections at trial. 6. Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Brian Fogg (Doc. No. 276) is GRANTED. 7. Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of David Stewart (Doc. No. 279) is DENIED and Stewart's testimony is presumptively admissible assuming proper foundation is laid and subject to objections at trial. 8. Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Jeffery A. Stec (Doc. No. 284) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. The Court excludes Stec's opinions and testimony on lost profits; b. The Court excludes Stec's opinions and testimony on disgorgement based on sales of non-Tempur-Pedic products; and c. All other remaining testimony is presumptively admissible assuming proper foundation is laid and subject to objections at trial. 9. Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Kristopher A. Boushie (Doc. No. 289) is DENIED and Boushie's testimony is presumptively admissible assuming proper foundation is laid and subject to objections at trial. 10. Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Bernhard Kuchel (Doc. No. 292) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. Kuchel's rebuttal testimony related to the DRE testing is presumptively admissible. b. All other testimony is excluded. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/28/2016. (BJS)