U-Haul 2016 Annual Report Download - page 89

AMERCO AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS – (CONTINUED)
F-33
On October 1, 2014, the Court ordered briefing on U-Haul’s oral motion for directed verdict on its
genericness defense, the motion on which the Court had deferred ruling during trial. Pursuant to the
Court’s order, the parties’ briefing on that motion was completed by October 21, 2014.
On March 11, 2015, the Court denied U-Haul’s Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict, For Judgment as
a Matter of Law, Or in the Alternative, Motion for a New Trial. Also on March 11, 2015, the Court entered
Judgment on the jury verdict in favor of PEI and against U-Haul in the amount of $60.7 million. This was
recorded as an accrual in our financial statements.
The parties have filed a series of post-Judgment motions:
On March 25, 2015, PEI filed a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of
$6.5 million. On April 27, 2015, U-Haul filed its opposition brief to that motion.
On March 25, 2015, PEI filed a Proposed Bill of Costs in the amount of $186,411. On April 14, 2015,
U-Haul filed an opposition to PEI’s Proposed Bill of Costs. On May 1, 2015, PEI filed an amended bill of
costs in the amount of $196,133.
On April 6, 2015, U-Haul filed, with PEI’s consent, a motion to stay execution of the Judgment,
pending the trial court’s rulings on U-Haul’s post-Judgment motions. That motion was supported by a
supersedeas bond in the amount of $60.9 million, which represents 100% of the Judgment plus post-
Judgment interest at the rate of 0.25% per year for 18 months. PEI and U-Haul both reserved the right to
modify the amount of the bond in the event the Judgment is modified by the Court’s rulings on the parties’
post-Judgment motions (described below). On April 7, 2015, the Court granted U-Haul’s motion on
consent, staying the Judgment pending rulings on U-Haul’s post-Judgment motions.
On April 8, 2015, U-Haul filed its Renewed Motion for Judgment As Matter of Law, or in the
Alternative, Motion for New Trial, or to Alter the Judgment. U-Haul argued that it is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law because even when all evidence is viewed in PEI’s favor, it was legally insufficient for
the jury to find for PEI. Alternatively, U-Haul argued that it is entitled to a new trial because the verdict is
against the weight of the evidence. Alternatively, U-Haul argued that the Court should reduce the
damages and profits award under principles of equity. On April, 27, 2015, PEI filed its opposition brief.
On April 8, 2015, PEI filed a Motion to Amend the Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), in which
it asked that the Judgment be amended to include (i) the entry of a permanent injunction; (ii) an award of
pre-Judgment interest in the amount of $4.9 million; (iii) an award of post-Judgment interest in the amount
of $11,441 and continuing to accrue at the rate of 0.25% while the case proceeds; (iv) doubling of the
damages award to $121.4 million; and (v) the entry of an order directing the Patent and Trademark Office
to dismiss the cancellation proceedings that U-Haul filed, which sought cancellation of the PODS
trademarks. On April 27, 2015, U-Haul filed its opposition brief arguing, among other things, that (1) PEI
is not entitled to recover double the windfall the jury incorrectly awarded it; (2) PEI is not entitled to the
overreaching injunction it seeks; (3) PEI is not entitled to pre-judgment interest; (4) PEI has overstated
the amount of post-Judgment interest to which it is entitled; and (5) PEI’s request that the Court order the
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to dismiss U-Haul’s cancellation proceeding is premature.
On April 9, 2015, U-Haul filed a protective Notice of Appeal. We expect that this notice of appeal will
be automatically stayed and will become effective upon the disposition of (1) U-Haul’s renewed motion for
judgment or a new trial or alteration of the Judgment or (2) PEI’s motion to alter or amend the Judgment,
whichever comes later.
On August 24, 2015, the trial court entered two orders resolving the parties' post-trial motions. In
short, U-Haul’s efforts at setting aside the judgment, getting a new trial or reducing the amount of the jury
award were denied, PEI’s motions to enhance (i.e., double) the jury award and receive an award for
attorneys’ fees were denied, but the Court entered a permanent injunction, and awarded PEI $4.9 million
in pre-judgment interest, $82,727 in costs, and post-judgment interest at the rate of 0.25%, beginning
March 11, 2015, computed daily and compounded annually. This was recorded as an accrual of $5.0
million in our financial statements during fiscal 2016.
On September 4, 2015, U-Haul filed in the trial court its (i) amended notice of appeal, (ii) motion on
consent of PEI to approve the bond and stay execution of the judgment pending appeal, and (iii) motion
to stay or modify the injunction.