Extract to table
Pull the structured facts out of a document: parties, dates, amounts, obligations.
Extract to table / answer-and-affirmative-defenses.docx
answer-and-affirmative-defenses.docx
Parties
Defendant Cascade Retail Holdings Inc
Harkness LLP
Plaintiff Vantor Holdings Corp
Hemsworth Consumer Products LLC
Tridale Manufacturing Inc
Orion Lifestyle Brands Corp
See Glenrock Corp
Linley LLP
Dates
September 7, 2021
September 28, 2021
July 1, 2018
June 30, 2022
March 15, 2019
March 14, 2022
January 10, 2020
January 9, 2022
May 10, 2021
June 1, 2021
Amounts
$14,600,000
$12,500,000
$8,300,000
$4,200,000
$31,000,000
$28,000,000
$19,500,000
$87,400,000
$34,200,000
$22,800,000
Obligations
Nothing contained in this Answer is intended as, or shall be construed as, an admission of any fact, matter, or legal conclusion set forth in the Complaint
This admission is limited to this action and shall not be construed as a general consent to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of California for any other purpose
4th 1134, 1153 (2003) (holding that a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's interference was independently wrongful)
Cascade states that any damages, to the extent they exist—which Cascade denies—must be limited to the remaining exclusive terms of the Vantor Supply Agreements at the time of the alleged interference
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Independently Wrongful Conduct — Prospective Economic Advantage) To prevail on a claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage under California law, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's conduct was "independently wrongful"—that is, wrongful by some legal measure other than the fact of the interference itself