Truyou Health Inc. v. Creative Flavor Concepts, Inc. CA4/3

Filed 6/30/21 Truyou Health Inc. v. Creative Flavor Concepts, Inc. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

TRUYOU HEALTH INC.,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G059256

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2017-00945121)

CREATIVE FLAVOR CONCEPTS, OPINION INC., et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Craig L. Griffin, Judge. Affirmed. Bowles & Johnson and David K. Bowles, for Defendants and Appellants. Rogers, MacLeith & Stolp and Douglas R. MacLeith, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

A jury purported to enter a verdict finding that defendant Richard Fischler intentionally interfered with a contract between plaintiff Truyou Health, Inc. (Truyou) and nonparty Interush Media, Inc. (Interush). Fischler then filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). In its analysis of the motion, the trial court found no verdict had been reached because the jury’s findings were in conflict and irreconcilable. So, it denied the motion but granted a new trial. On appeal, Fischler argues the court erred by denying his JNOV motion because there was no contract with which he could interfere. We affirm the trial court’s order without reaching the merits of Fischler’s argument. As a matter of law, a court cannot grant a JNOV motion if the jury has not rendered a verdict. Fischler does not challenge this aspect of the court’s ruling. Thus, 1 the court correctly denied Fischler’s JNOV motion since no verdict had been rendered.

I FACTS Truyou sells an energy drink mix. In 2012, its predecessor in interest agreed to supply nonparty Interush with the product for distribution in Asia (the 2012 agreement). Truyou does not manufacture the mix itself. During the relevant time period, it purchased mix manufactured by defendant Creative Flavor Concepts (Creative) and then sold it to Interush. Fischler was Creative’s CEO during this period. In 2015, Truyou, Creative, and Interush entered into an agreement that restructured the parties’ relationship (the 2015 agreement). The recitals of the 2015 agreement noted the parties’ existing relationship, in which Creative manufactured the