![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/wmarkham.png\")
Three Trial Victories in Related Cases for Commercial Fraud<\/h2>\n[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ custom_padding_last_edited=”on|desktop” admin_label=”Inner Top Banner and Title Section” module_class=”inner-banner-sec” _builder_version=”4.27.0″ background_image=”https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/court-header-2.jpg” custom_padding=”120px||20px||false|false” custom_padding_tablet=”80px||20px||false|false” custom_padding_phone=”50px||||false|false” background_last_edited=”on|phone” collapsed=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row module_class=”pstatic” _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ module_class=”pstatic” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Title” module_class=”leftborder” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ text_font=”|900|||||||” text_text_color=”#ffffff” header_font=”|700||on|||||” header_text_align=”left” header_text_color=”#303030″ header_font_size=”40px” header_line_height=”1.3em” header_2_font=”|700|||||||” header_2_text_align=”left” header_2_text_color=”#ffffff” header_2_font_size=”27px” header_2_line_height=”1.25em” header_3_font=”|700|||||||” header_3_text_color=”#ffffff” header_3_font_size=”27px” header_3_line_height=”1.2em” max_width=”700px” module_alignment=”left” custom_padding=”||||false|false” custom_padding_tablet=”” custom_padding_phone=”||||false|false” custom_padding_last_edited=”on|phone” hover_enabled=”0″ text_font_size_tablet=”” text_font_size_phone=”20px” text_font_size_last_edited=”on|phone” header_text_align_tablet=”left” header_text_align_phone=”left” header_text_align_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_font_size_tablet=”36px” header_font_size_phone=”30px” header_font_size_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_line_height_tablet=”1.3em” header_line_height_phone=”1.3em” header_line_height_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_2_text_align_tablet=”left” header_2_text_align_phone=”left” header_2_text_align_last_edited=”on|phone” header_2_font_size_tablet=”32px” header_2_font_size_phone=”24px” header_2_font_size_last_edited=”on|phone” header_3_font_size_tablet=”27px” header_3_font_size_phone=”21px” header_3_font_size_last_edited=”on|phone” text_orientation_tablet=”” text_orientation_phone=”” text_orientation_last_edited=”on|phone” header_2_text_shadow_style=”preset1″ header_2_text_shadow_horizontal_length=”2px” header_2_text_shadow_vertical_length=”2px” header_2_text_shadow_blur_strength=”2px” header_2_text_shadow_color=”#303030″ global_colors_info=”{}” custom_css_main_element_last_edited=”on|desktop” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”Main Content Section” module_class=”inner-content-sec” _builder_version=”4.27.0″ collapsed=”on” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”Row” _builder_version=”4.27.0″ custom_margin=”||||false|false” custom_padding=”||||false|false” collapsed=”on” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Successive Trial Victories in Collins Cases” _builder_version=”4.24.3″ text_font=”||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ header_font=”|900|||||||” header_font_size=”48px” header_2_font=”|700||on|||||” header_2_text_align=”left” header_2_text_color=”#000000″ header_2_line_height=”1.2em” text_line_height_tablet=”” text_line_height_phone=”” text_line_height_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_font_size_tablet=”36px” header_font_size_phone=”27px” header_font_size_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_2_text_align_tablet=”left” header_2_text_align_phone=”” header_2_text_align_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_2_font_size_tablet=”” header_2_font_size_phone=”27px” header_2_font_size_last_edited=”on|desktop” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
Three Trial Victories in Related Cases for Commercial Fraud<\/h2>\nIn 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 in San Diego Superior Court; (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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s liability to Mr. Markham\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
Regrettably, the principal defendant\u2019s apparent strategy was to oppose Mr. Markham\u2019s client so relentlessly that she would cease to seek relief and acquiesce in his commercial fraud, but Mr. Markham\u2019s client became resolved not to permit this strategy to succeed. The defendant\u2019s preferred strategy was unfortunate for everyone concerned, and it did not succeed. Mr. Markham\u2019s client prevailed in each of the above proceedings. Case Name<\/strong>:\u00a0Collins v. Defendant\u2019s Name Redacted <\/i>\u00a0(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).<\/p>\n Prove-Up Judgments Granted Upon Substantial Submission and Comprehensive Showing<\/b>. 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 shortly before trial. By then, Mr. Markham had conclusively established and explained their complicated fraud, so that it was clear that they would lose on the merits.<\/p>\n Mr. Markham obtained these judgments by making a substantial prove-up submission to an initially skeptical judge, who at first indicated her inclination to grant a much lower judgment. By this judgment, Mr. Markham\u2019s clients obtained the right to a full recovery of all 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.<\/p>\n These constituted an unqualified victory for the firm\u2019s 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\u2019s request, issuing the above judgments in order to redress Defendants\u2019 complicated scheme to defraud many victims over a period of several years.<\/p>\n Mr. Markham received very helpful assistance in this case from his former partner and colleague Antonio Maldonado. Case Name<\/strong>: Ngo et al. v. Nguyen et al.<\/em>\u00a0(LA Cty. Sup. Ct., Case No. BC418361).<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.16″ collapsed=”on” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Trial Victory: Prevailing Party in Trial of a Commercial Tenancy Dispute” _builder_version=”4.24.3″ text_font=”||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ header_font=”|900|||||||” header_font_size=”48px” header_2_font=”|700||on|||||” header_2_text_align=”left” header_2_text_color=”#000000″ header_2_line_height=”1.2em” text_line_height_tablet=”” text_line_height_phone=”” text_line_height_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_font_size_tablet=”36px” header_font_size_phone=”27px” header_font_size_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_2_text_align_tablet=”left” header_2_text_align_phone=”” header_2_text_align_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_2_font_size_tablet=”” header_2_font_size_phone=”27px” header_2_font_size_last_edited=”on|desktop” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=”1_4,3_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ border_style_all=”none” collapsed=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/Our-Extensive-Trial-Experience.jpg” align_tablet=”center” align_phone=”” align_last_edited=”on|tablet” _builder_version=”4.16″ box_shadow_style=”preset3″ box_shadow_vertical=”4px” box_shadow_blur=”24px” box_shadow_color=”rgba(0,0,0,0.45)” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_code _builder_version=”4.20.2″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\nObtained Prove-Up Judgment After Defendants Defaulted Before Trial<\/h2>\n
Trial Win for Commercial Tenants After Their Landlord Refused to Renew Their Commercial Lease<\/h2>\n