LITIGATION

In Meyers v. Conehead Investments, Inc. (Los Angeles County Superior Court) the firm represented a Cold Stone Creamery franchise and prevailed on a cutting edge question regarding the enforceability of an arbitration provision in a franchise agreement. “The law is now becoming very clear in California. Franchisors need to look at the arbitration provisions in their agreements, which may be subject to the possibility that they will not be enforced and that they will not be able to pursue arbitration,” said Jim Mulcahy in public comments quoted in the press. April 2007 Los Angeles Daily Journal, National Law Journal

In Fladeboe v. American Isuzu (Orange County Superior Court) the firm represented the U.S. distributor of Isuzu vehicles, defending the claims of a vehicle dealer who alleged that the distributor had wrongfully withheld consent to the transfer of the franchise. Not only did the firm prevail on the dealer’s claims, the firm successfully countersued alleging fraud and unfair business practices, securing a jury verdict and then a court judgment after a six-week trial. The firm also successfully handled the appeal of the matter. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in full on April 23, 2007.

Additional Cases

In Lunkenheimer v. Tomkins, P.L.C. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio) Jim Mulcahy was the lead trial counsel for Tomkins, P.L.C., a multinational company based in the United Kingdom, in a suit brought by an industrial valve company alleging breach of contract, fraud, trademark infringement, antitrust violations, theft of trade secrets and unfair competition. The plaintiff asked the jury for $45 million and punitive damages. After a 3-month trial, the jury found for Tomkins and entered a $7.12 million verdict in favor of Tomkins on its counterclaims alleging fraud, breach of contract, and tortious interference.

In Cascade v. American Suzuki (U.S. District Court, District of Oregon) the firm, representing the U.S. distributor of Suzuki vehicles, defended numerous claims asserted by a terminated vehicle dealer against the distributor and the dealer who replaced the terminated dealer. The firm secured the dismissal of the plaintiff’s Robinson-Patman Act claim prior to filing a motion for summary judgment as to all other claims, which led to a settlement of the case.

In American Isuzu v. Fladeboe (U.S. District Court, Central District of California) the firm, on behalf of the U.S. distributor of Isuzu vehicles, successfully prosecuted a vehicle dealer for trademark infringement after the dealer sued for breach of contract. The firm won a jury verdict in excess of $375,000 in favor of the distributor, as well as an order to pay over $45,000 in costs.

In Dousette v. Red Brick Pizza (Los Angeles County Superior Court) the firm, representing a franchisor, successfully petitioned the court to grant a new trial following a trial handled by other counsel. The court vacated the $6.5 million jury verdict against the franchisor and ordered a new trial after the firm convinced the judge to take the unusual step of re-opening discovery and conducting post-trial hearings. The firm prevailed after seven months of discovery and hearings, after which the court found that the plaintiff had withheld evidence during the trial.

In Clark Equipment Company v. Lift Parts Mfg. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois) and Harlan Corporation v. Clark Equipment Company (U.S. District Court, Kansas) Jim Mulcahy successfully represented Clark Equipment in cases brought under the United States Copyright Act, Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, federal and state unfair competition law, and under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, their counterparts under state antitrust laws, and the Robinson Patman Act.

In Stuft Pizza v. Rai (Orange County Superior Court) the firm represented a franchisor who sued four terminated franchisees for trademark infringement and related claims. The firm also defended the franchisees’ $3.5 million counterclaim for fraud and breach of contract. Following a five week trial, the firm obtained a jury verdict in favor of the franchisor on both the franchisor’s claim and the counterclaim. The verdict was in excess of the damages sought by the franchisor. The firm also secured an award of treble damages and attorney’s fees, as well as a permanent injunction. The award was not only against the corporate franchisees, but also their principals, as the firm successfully pierced the corporate veil.

In Continental Sales v. American Suzuki (Utah Department of Motor Vehicles) the firm, representing the U.S. distributor of Suzuki vehicles, opposed a vehicle dealer’s petition to prevent the relocation of another vehicle dealer of the same line make in the relevant market area. The commissioner of the Utah DMV ruled in favor of the firm’s client and dismissed the petition following a full evidentiary hearing.

In Lippo v. Mobil Oil Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois), Lawmen’s and Shooter’s Supply, Inc. v. Smith and Wesson (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida), and Smith and Wesson v. Knight Enterprises (U.S. District Court, Arizona) Jim Mulcahy was lead trial counsel for Smith and Wesson and Mobil in claims alleging violations of antitrust laws, trademark infringement, violation of franchising statutes, and breach of manufacturer/dealer contracts.

In Barnett’s v. American Suzuki (North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles) the firm, on behalf of the U.S. distributor of Suzuki vehicles, defended a vehicle dealer’s protest of the addition of a new dealer and claim of unfair allocation of product in violation of North Carolina law. The firm prevailed on the add-point claim via a motion for summary judgment, and the dealer voluntarily dismissed the unfair allocation claim prior to hearing.

In LA Suzuki v. Suzuki (California New Motor Vehicle Board) the firm represented the distributor of Suzuki vehicles when one of its dealers protested the addition of a new dealer. The firm’s handling of the matter led the dealer to dismiss its claims with prejudice during discovery.

In PRASA v. Beatrice Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Puerto Rico) Jim Mulcahy was the lead trial counsel for Beatrice in a $100 million suit alleging breach of implied and express warranties after Puerto Rico’s water supply system failed.

In both Zee One v. Suzuki and Gerald Suzuki v. Suzuki (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois) the firm, working on behalf of the distributor of Suzuki vehicles, defended claims filed by dealers challenging their termination. The firm obtained temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions from the federal court under the Federal Arbitration Act, enjoining the dealers from proceeding before the Illinois Department of Motor Vehicles. As a result, the cases were forced to arbitration, at which point the dealers dismissed their claims.

In Bosch v. Suzuki (California New Motor Vehicle Board) the firm, on behalf of the distributor of Suzuki vehicles, defended a dealer’s protest of its termination. The firm obtained a stipulated order dismissing the proceeding, with the dealer paying the firm’s client for its fees and expenses.

In Hauck v. Centel Telephone Company (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois) Jim Mulcahy as lead trial counsel successfully defended a $38 million action alleging the defective design and installation of telephone system infrastructure.

In Metrano v. Fox and Seton v. Warner Bros. (both U.S. District Court, Central District of California), and in a number of other cases, Rex Reeves prosecuted claims against television networks and film studios on various legal theories, including copyright infringement, alleging that his clients’ creative submissions had been misappropriated. The reported opinion in Metrano is often cited by plaintiffs alleging misappropriation of creative submissions.

In H&K v. ABC and H&K v. CNN (U.S. District Court, Central District of California) Rex Reeves prosecuted claims on behalf of a producer against national television networks alleging that they had used the producer’s film footage unlawfully without consent. The networks claimed that their use of the footage was fair use of newsworthy material.

In Childress v. Suzuki (Arizona Motor Vehicle Board) the firm represented the distributor of Suzuki vehicles and obtained a dismissal of a dealer’s protest of its termination. The firm then successfully handled the opposition to the dealer’s appeal.

In Submarina v. S&D # 4 (San Diego Superior Court) the firm successfully enforced the termination of a franchise and obtained preliminary and permanent injunctions on behalf of a franchisor against a franchisee who had failed to pay royalties.

In Submarina v. Sial (U.S. District Court, Southern District of California) the firm obtained a TRO on behalf of a franchisor against a franchisee for violation of the Lanham Act. The TRO not only enjoined the operation of a store by the franchisee, but also permitted the franchisor to assume control of it. The firm then obtained a preliminary injunction, after which the matter settled, with the franchisee paying all past due royalties, agreeing to terminate the franchise, and paying the firm’s client its attorneys’ fees and costs.

In Network Entertainment v. Aegis Entertainment (Los Angeles Superior Court) Rex Reeves not only defended Network Entertainment of Australia against claims brought by a California production company regarding the alleged failure to fund a film project, but also cross-claimed against the production company for breach of contract and numerous other claims.

In Bernard v. Resort Development (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois), Durian v. Kock (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois), Korpai v. Bingham (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois), In Re Financed Precious Metals Litigation (U.S. District Court, Central District of California), and Kashwer v. Skowron (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois) Jim Mulcahy was lead trial counsel for an accountant and registered representatives in federal securities fraud actions and disciplinary proceedings before the NASD arising out of the issuance of promissory notes, the sales of condominium units in a resort development, and the marketing of precious metals contracts.

In Dove Audio v. Lungren (U.S. District Court, Central District of California) Rex Reeves had primary responsibility for the prosecution of a First Amendment claim challenging the constitutionality of a California statute limiting the free speech rights of jurors. The court not only declared the statute unconstitutional, but also awarded over $80,000 in fees and costs to the client.

In Greenpeace v. Republic of France (U.S. District Court, Central District of California) Rex Reeves had primary responsibility defending the French government against claims brought by individuals claiming that French agents violated U.S. law in their handling of a law enforcement matter. The court ruled in favor of the French government on a motion to dismiss based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Litigation Practice Overview Back to Top

ADR

In Hartmann-Lausanne, Inc. v. Hemocue (Orange County Superior Court; JAMS Orange County) the firm tried the claims of a Texas distributor of medical products for unpaid post-termination commissions against the U.S. subsidiary of the Swedish manufacturer of the products. A three-judge arbitration panel awarded the firm’s client over $418,000 in damages and over $788,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs following a lengthy arbitration. When the defendant moved the Superior Court to vacate the award, the court not only denied the motion but also awarded the firm’s client its fees and costs incurred in connection with the motion.

In Fanfare Investments v. FS Concepts (AAA, Los Angeles) the firm defended the regional franchisor for Fantastic Sams hair salons in Hawaii against the claims of a franchisee who alleged fraud and violation of the California Franchise Investment Law. The firm obtained an award which not only dismissed the franchisee’s claims, but also awarded the regional franchisor over $42,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

In Eagle Rider v. Eagle Rider Harley Rental of San Antonio (AAA, Los Angeles) the firm defended against a franchisee’s claim that his franchise was wrongfully terminated. The firm obtained a judgment in favor of the franchisor after a week-long arbitration hearing.

In Vallochia v. Cinque Amici LLC (Orange County Superior Court; Judicate West, Orange County) the firm defended against claims brought by a member of an LLC against the LLC regarding the ownership of a popular restaurant and the rights and duties of the members of the LLC. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the LLC after a two-day arbitration hearing.

In Shaw v. Iowa Grain Co., Kanz v. U.S. Futures and First Options Co., and Sussman v. Refco, Inc. (National Futures Association, Chicago) the firm arbitrated claims brought before the NFA alleging unauthorized trading, failure to liquidate open positions, and failure to supervise broker activity in customer accounts.

In Gregor v. Pacific Brokerage Services, Toro v. Bosworth, Beckney v. Chatfield Dean & Co., Jones v. Royal Alliance Associates, PKB Construction v. Santa Barbara Securities, Inc., Prudential Securities, Inc. v. Gordica, Kellner v. Paine Webber, Inc., Hazel L. Allan Trust v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., Appleton v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., Simon v. Baraban Securities, Inc., Teiura v. Corporate Benefits Securities, Inc., Arafat v. W,J. Nolan & Co., Brandlin v. Bear, Stearns & Co., and Plycraft Industries v. BOA the firm arbitrated claims brought before the NASD alleging registration, fiduciary duty, and disclosure violations, among other claims, in connection with the offering and sale of financial products.

In Sign-A-Rama v. Mapel (AAA, Orange County) the firm arbitrated an action before the AAA on behalf of the franchisor, which resulted in the termination of the franchisee and an award of damages to the franchisor.

ADR Practice Overview Back to Top