Party Animal, Inc. v. Evanger’s Dog and Cat Food Co., Inc.; Nutripack, LLC; and Does a through 100, inclusive

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 1, 2026
• Docket: 2:17-cv-03422
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 11 PARTY ANIMAL, INC. Case No. 2:17-cv-03422-PSG-PD

12 v

.

Plaintiff, Hon. Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong 13 EVANGER’S DOG AND CAT FOOD JUDGMENT 14 CO., INC., an Illinois corporation; NUTRIPACK, LLC, an Illinois limited 15 liability company; and DOES a through 100, inclusive,

16 Defendants. 17

18 EVANGER’S DOG AND CAT FOOD CO., INC., an Illinois corporation, 19 Counter-Claimant, 20 v.

21 PARTY ANIMAL, INC.

22 Counter-Defendant. 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Party Animal, Inc. (“Party Animal” or 2 “Plaintiff”) brought the present action against Defendant and Counter-Claimant 3 Evanger’s Dog and Cat Food Co., Inc. (“Evanger’s”), which action was tried before a 4 jury in the above-captioned Court beginning May 1, 2023. On May 10, 2023, the 5 jury entered its special verdicts on Party Animal’s five causes of action for breach of 6 contract (which breach was stipulated to by Party Animal and Evanger’s), negligent 7 misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied 8 warranty of fitness for particular purpose, and breach of express warranty. The jury 9 also rendered their special verdicts on Evanger’s crossclaims for its causes of action, 10 including breach of contract, account stated, and unjust enrichment. The jury 11 rendered their special verdicts as follows: 12 As indicated on the Special Verdict Forms that attended each of Party Animal’s 13 five causes of action, and as indicated below, the jury found that the damages owed 14 for lost profits summed to $6,500,000 (six million, five hundred thousand dollars). 15 Out-of-pocket expenses summing to $380,000 (three hundred and eighty thousand 16 dollars) were entered by the jury on the breach of contract special verdict form only. 17 The jury awarded Evanger’s the sum of $545,000 (five hundred and forty-five 18 thousand dollars) collectively on its cross-claims for breach of contract and account 19 stated. The jury returned a verdict in Party Animal’s favor on the unjust enrichment 20 claim. Therefore, the net verdict to Plaintiff Party Animal is $6,335,000 (six million 21 three hundred and thirty-five thousand). 22 After the verdict, the Court heard hearings on Plaintiff’s claims of alter ego 23 liability involving Evanger’s and Nutripack, LLC on July 17-18, 2023. The Court 24 ordered briefing after the hearings and rendering Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 25 Law on November 18, 2024, ruling in Evanger’s and Nutripack, LLC’s favor that 26 Party Animal failed to show that Nutripack, LLC is the alter ego of Evanger’s. 27 28 In light of the verdicts on the claims of Party Animal and the verdicts on 2 | Evanger’s cross-claims, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED. ADJUDGED AND 3 | DECREED THAT: 4 1. Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Party Animal, Inc. 5 in the amount of $6,335,000 (six million, three hundred and thirty-five 6 thousand) and $1,940,411.98 (one million, nine hundred and forty thousand, 7 four hundred eleven dollars and ninety-eight cents‘) in post-verdict interest. 8 2. Judgment is entered for Defendant and Counter-Claimant Evanger’s Dog 9 and Cat Food Company, Inc., on Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Party 10 Animal’s claim that Evanger’s Dog and Cat Food Company, Inc. was the 11 alter ego of Defendant Nutripak, LLC. 12 13 14 15 /// 16 | —— 17 “The recognized general rule is that state law determines the rate of preyudgment interest in diversity actions.” Northrop Corp. v. Triad Int’l Mktg., S.A., 842 F.2d 18 1154, 1155 (9th Cir. 1988). “In diversity actions, state law determines the rate of 19 | prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest is governed by federal law.” Am. 50 Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United Computer Sys., Inc., 98 F.3d 1206, 1209 (9th Cir. 1996). “If a contract entered into after January 1, 1986, does not stipulate a legal rate of interest, the obligation shall bear interest at a rate of 10 percent per annum after a 92 | breach.” CAL. CIV. CODE § 3289. 33 | The appropriate calculation follows given 1,113 days have passed since the jury verdict on May 10, 2023, and June 1, 2026: 24 e Daily Interest = (Principal x Annual Rate) + 365 » = $6,335,000 x 0.10 + 365 26 = $1,735.61 per day Total Interest Over 1,118 Days = $1,735.61 x 1,118 28 = $1,940,411.98

1 3. The Court retains jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of enforcing 2 and executing this judgment. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

S5|DATED: June 1, 2026 By: 6 Hon. Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong United States District Court 7 8 9 10 11 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28