Rauxale Limited v United Medical Devices, LLC, BC652372
Motion for an Order Requiring Plaintiff to File an Undertaking by Defendant and Cross-Complainant United Medical Devices, LLC: GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide an undertaking of $550,000 within 30 days.This case arises out of allegations that Defendant United Medical Devices, LLC (“UMD”) breached its distribution contract with Plaintiff Rauxale Limited (“Rauxale”), a Cyprus limited company, by failing to deliver the product ordered, of Playboy-branded condoms. (Declaration of Jimmy Esebag [“Esebag Decl.”] Ex. B.) UMD and Rauxale entered into a written distribution agreement on April 26, 2012 (the “Rauxale Agreement”). The UMD agreement was amended on April 28, 2013. (Declaration of Paul Levin [“Levin Decl.”] ¶ 3, Ex. 2.) Rauxale contends that UMD breached the agreement by not delivering the product ordered by Rauxale or remitting monies it paid. UMD contends that it was Rauxale who breached the contract by not timely payi
Hearing Date
October 24, 2017
Type
Othr Breach Contr/Warr-not Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Rauxale Limited v United Medical Devices, LLC, BC652372
Motion for an Order Requiring Plaintiff to File an Undertaking by Defendant and Cross-Complainant United Medical Devices, LLC: GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide an undertaking of $550,000 within 30 days.This case arises out of allegations that Defendant United Medical Devices, LLC (“UMD”) breached its distribution contract with Plaintiff Rauxale Limited (“Rauxale”), a Cyprus limited company, by failing to deliver the product ordered, of Playboy-branded condoms. (Declaration of Jimmy Esebag [“Esebag Decl.”] Ex. B.) UMD and Rauxale entered into a written distribution agreement on April 26, 2012 (the “Rauxale Agreement”). The UMD agreement was amended on April 28, 2013. (Declaration of Paul Levin [“Levin Decl.”] ¶ 3, Ex. 2.) Rauxale contends that UMD breached the agreement by not delivering the product ordered by Rauxale or remitting monies it paid. UMD contends that it was Rauxale who breached the contract by not timely payi