Successive Trial Victories in Long-Running Controversy Over Commercial Fraud
In a long-running judicial saga, Mr. Markham obtained the following redress for his client, who was the victim of an elaborate commercial fraud and then the victim of oppressive litigation tactics: (1) Jury verdicts against an individual defendant for three counts of common-law fraud, issued after a four-day jury trial; (2) jury verdicts against a corporation for breach of a commercial contract and restitution, issued after the same trial; (3) a bench verdict, issued after a bifurcated bench trial, that established the individual’s alter-ego liability for the judgment against the corporation; (3) affirmance on appeal of the jury verdicts and bench verdict; (4) reversal on appeal of the trial court’s dismissal of claims against a second individual defendant; (5) a partial enforcement of the original judgment against the corporation; (6) a partial settlement; (7) a new, superseding bankruptcy judgment, issued after a three-day bench trial (adversary proceeding), which established the nondischargeability of the first individual defendant’s liability to Mr. Markham’s client and also confirmed the amount of this liability after the partial enforcement and partial settlement; and (8) leave from the bankruptcy court to record an abstract of the new federal judgment against the first individual’s property. In this matter, Mr. Markham obtained a final, nondischargeable bankruptcy judgment for $639,877.53 against the principal individual wrongdoer in addition to having collected approximately $186,000. After collecting these funds and obtaining the nondischargeable judgment, the parties concluded and performed a confidential settlement agreement.
Regrettably, the principal defendant’s apparent strategy was to oppose Mr. Markham’s client so relentlessly that she would cease to seek relief and acquiesce in his commercial fraud, but Mr. Markham’s client became resolved not to permit this strategy to succeed. The defendant’s preferred strategy was unfortunate for everyone concerned, and it did not succeed. Mr. Markham’s client prevailed in each of the above proceedings. Case Name: Collins v. Defendant’s Name Redacted (Cal. Superior Ct., S.D. Cty., Case No. GIC 880706; Fourth Appellate District of California, Docket Nos. D056865 and D057757; and United States Bankruptcy Ct., S.D. Cal. Adversary No. 14-90037).
Prevailing Party in Substantial Securities Fraud Case
Prove-Up Judgments Granted Upon Substantial Submission and Comprehensive Showing. In a substantial case of securities fraud, Mr. Markham represented fifteen plaintiffs and obtained judgments on their behalf against seven defendants for a total amount of $968,928.00 after the principal defendants defaulted. These defendants vigorously opposed Mr. Markham until it became obvious that they would lose on the merits, after which they defaulted. By these judgments, which were obtained upon a substantial prove-up submission, Mr. Markham’s clients obtained the right to full recovery of all of the money that the defendants had obtained from them by their fraudulent promotion and sale of securities in violation of the California Corporations Code and various common-law doctrines. The judgments that Mr. Markham obtained constitute an unqualified victory for the firm’s clients in a very complex case of highly sophisticated securities fraud. The principal challenge in this matter was to investigate and uncover the fraud and to untangle a mystifying, confusing set of facts in order to give a clear, convincing explanation of the matter to a skeptical trial court. In the end, the trial court was fully satisfied and granted 100% of Mr. Markham’s request, issuing the above judgments in order to redress Defendants’ complicated scheme to defraud many victims over a period of several years. Mr. Markham received helpful assistance in this case from his former partner and colleague Antonio Maldonado. Case Name: Ngo et al. v. Nguyen et al. (LA Cty. Sup. Ct., Case No. BC418361).
Trial Victory: Prevailing Party in Trial of a Commercial Tenancy Dispute
Mr. Markham tried this case before the trial judge, who granted judgment to his clients on all grounds, deeming them to be the prevailing party in their claims against the defendant, and deeming them to be the prevailing parties in the defendant’s cross-claims against them. This case concerned various disputes between commercial tenants and a commercial landlord in which Mr Markham represented the commercial tenants. The trial court found that the tenants were entitled to exercise their option to renew their lease for an additional five years, and moreover that they were in compliance with the complicated insurance provisions set forth in the commercial lease. The landlord took the opposite position on these points. The landlord subsequently prevailed on its appeal from one part of the judgment, obtaining an outright reversal of this part of the judgment (Mr. Markham continued to represent his clients during the appeal), but on remand the landlord lost on its principal post-appellate initiative and also failed to recover much of its requested post-appellate relief. This was a closely contested case in which Mr. Markham was opposed by a team of attorneys who included one of San Diego’s most skilled trial lawyers as well as two leading appellate practitioners. Mr. Markham handled all aspects of both cases for his clients, including the consolidated trials and the appeal. Case name: Image 2000 Multimedia, Inc. v. Joseph Quin Family Trust (S.D. Cty. Sup. Ct., Case No. 37 2007 00062035 CU-BC-EC).
Successful Follow-Up Vindication of Commercial Tenant’s Rights
The commercial landlord in the above case brought another action against the same commercial tenants after losing the above-listed case on all grounds (even so, the landlord was able to obtain limited relief on appeal from the above case, as is explained above). After five months of arduous litigation, the landlord abruptly dropped the case, doing so one day before its representative had been ordered to answer further deposition questions about its motive for bringing the lawsuit. Case Name: Joseph Quin Family Trust v. Image 2000 Multimedia, Inc. (S.D. County, Case No. 37 2008 00102257 CU-UD-EC).
Successful Stipulated Judgment at Trial Call
In a complicated commercial dispute in which Mr. Markham represented a supplier of mailbags against a distributor, the distributor dropped its cross-claims and gave a stipulated judgment to Mr. Markham’s client on the day of the trial call. The stipulated judgment was for $200,000, along with interest. Case Name: Tedcom International, Inc. v. Flamingo Industries, Inc. (Alameda Cty. Sup. Ct., 2000-074279)
- An Overview of Antitrust Law
- Why Antitrust Laws Matter?
- Making Sense of the Rules of Evidence and Presenting Your Evidence at Trial
- Anatomy of a Lawsuit
- Foreclosure Law in California
- Partnerships and Limited Liability Companies
Our Recent Articles
Senator Klobuchar’s Bill Really Might Become Law. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) has proposed a landmark antitrust bill, entitled the “Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act,” which after negotiation and modification might well receive bipartisan...
The Qualcomm Case Isn’t Even a Close Call: Qualcomm Blatantly Misused Its Standard-Essential Patents to Restrain Trade and Monopolize Markets. By William Markham
The Extraordinary Qualcomm Case. The defining antitrust issues of our time are at stake in the landmark case of Fed Trade Comm'n v. Qualcomm Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2017, Case No. 17-CV-00220-LH) ("Qualcomm"). Qualcomm specifically concerns standard-essential patents and...
The DOJ’s Investigation of the Auto Producers’ Draft Agreement with California: It Is Misguided and Likely an Abuse of Power. By William Markham
The United States Department of Justice has reportedly begun an antitrust investigation of four major automakers for possible unlawful collusion in violation of United States antitrust law. The cause of this investigation? The automakers tentatively agreed with the...
The Law Offices of William Markham, P.C.
- 402 West Broadway, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92101.
Tell Us About Your Case
Call 619.221.4400 now or fill out the form below to receive a free and confidential initial consultation.