Defrauded him and hundreds of other people by repurposing leftover purse materials and selling it as good art prints by pop artist Takashi Murakami. District Courtroom Judge A. Howard Matz on Wednesday denied Louis Vuitton's movement to have Arthur's fit dismissed, and established a pretrial convention for Aug. 24. Arthur's lawyers have approximated that the luxury goods purveyor in as a lot as $four million promoting prints at a unique boutique it had set up at MOCA's Geffen Modern building, in the middle of a 200708 exhibition of Murakami's work. With treble damages supplied by legislation, hundreds of thousands much more could be at stake. "I'm thrilled," Arthur, a Los Angeles collector and producer of connoisseur butter, said Friday when reached at New York's Museum of Modern Art, where he was viewing inside louis vuitton outlet online furnishings by Frank Lloyd Wright. "I always understood that we would prevail in this, and I'm extremely gratified that the judge sees it our way." Louis Vuitton issued a statement saying it is "shocked and dissatisfied" by the ruling. intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this baseless litigation." The Louis Vuitton situation concerns two prints Arthur purchased for $6,000 every at the unique boutique. The independent case against MOCA concerned three Murakami prints that he for $two,655 from the regular museum shop on Grand Avenue. In each cases, Arthur contended that the sellers violated California's Fine Prints Act, which requires sellers in limitededition artwork reproductions to certify their authenticity and offer information about how many prints exist, and how they were created. In the case towards MOCA, Arthur alleged that he and untold figures of others who have purchased louis vuitton outlet store online prints from the museum over the many years had not obtained certificates required by legislation, and were consequently entitled not only to correct certificates, but to treble damages that the Good Prints Act provides for "willful" violations. But Highberger found that Arthur lost his standing to sue louis vuitton factory outlet when he refused to take MOCA's offer of a refund. "To allow a purchaser to both maintain his allegedly faulty buy and to get his cash back . benefits opportunistic litigation (of which this situation is a primary example)," the judge wrote in his ruling. But Matz, considering the same issue, determined the opposite was accurate: The Good Prints Act, Matz wrote, "focuses not on what a purchaser should do," but on whether or