{"id":24921,"date":"2017-01-26T12:10:21","date_gmt":"2017-01-26T12:10:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/dev\/?page_id=24921"},"modified":"2025-04-18T05:00:57","modified_gmt":"2025-04-18T12:00:57","slug":"bills-trials","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/our-team\/markham-antitrust-lawyer\/bills-trials\/","title":{"rendered":"William Markham\u2019s Trials"},"content":{"rendered":"

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ custom_padding_last_edited=”on|desktop” admin_label=”Top Image and Title Section” module_class=”inner-banner-sec” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ 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” locked=”off” collapsed=”on” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row module_class=”pstatic” _builder_version=”4.27.0″ 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” text_font_size=”29px” text_line_height=”1.1em” 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=”20px||||false|false” custom_padding_last_edited=”on|phone” 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=”” 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”]<\/p>\n

William Markham\u2019s Trials<\/h1>\n

[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”Dynamic TOC Sidebar + Content” module_class=”content-sidebar-sec” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”40px||60px||false|false” locked=”off” collapsed=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row column_structure=”1_4,3_4″ make_equal=”on” admin_label=”Dynamic TOC Sidebar + Main Content” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”0px||0px||false|false” locked=”off” collapsed=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ module_class=”sidebar-col” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_code admin_label=”Dynamic TOC Sidebar” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

[\/et_pb_code][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ module_class=”sidebar-content-col” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Main Content” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ 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” hover_enabled=”0″ 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=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n

Three Trial Wins Establishing Substantial, Non-Dischargeable Liability in Case for Commercial Fraud, Alter-Ego Liability, and Bankruptcy Dischargeability<\/strong>
<\/b><\/h2>\n

Mr. Markham obtained four special jury verdicts for his client after a four-day jury trial<\/a> in a commercial dispute. Three of the verdicts were against an individual defendant for three kinds of commercial fraud — intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation — and the fourth verdict was against a corporation for breach of a commercial contract. The jury also awarded damages for emotional distress to Mr. Markham\u2019s client, but these damages were disallowed by the court on a technical ground. In the same case, Mr. Markham also obtained a bench verdict for alter-ego liability in a bifurcated proceeding, so that the individual defendant was adjudicated personally liable for his corporation\u2019s liability to Mr. Markham\u2019s client. That ruling mattered greatly because it rendered the individual liable for the attorney\u2019s fees and costs incurred and paid by his client. Before these trials, Mr. Markham obtained the dismissal of ambitious cross-claims that the defendants had made against his client. On appeal, Mr. Markham obtained complete affirmances of these trial victories on all grounds, as well as a reversal of the trial court’s dismissal of a third defendant. Mr. Markham subsequently reached a settlement with this third defendant. The lead defendant thereafter attempted to obtain a bankruptcy discharge of the judgment against him. Mr. Markham therefore litigated and tried this issue in bankruptcy court, winning this trial too after an unusually fraught, three-day bench trial. Mr. Markham thus obtained a ruling of non-dischargeability for his client from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California, which merged the state-court judgment into a new federal judgment, which is non-dischargeable. The final amount of this judgment is $639,877.53, which was rendered in addition to the $185,000 that Mr. Markham had already recovered for his client before the bankruptcy by partial satisfactions. In these related cases, the principal defendant\u2019s strategy was to oppose Mr. Markham\u2019s client so relentlessly that she would ultimately acquiesce in his commercial fraud rather than pursue the matter further. This strategy was unfortunate for everyone concerned, but for Mr. Markham\u2019s client it was a matter of principle to establish that the defendants had defrauded her. She prevailed on all grounds from the start and clearly established that she had been a victim of calculated commercial fraud. Case Name: Collins v. Defendants\u2019 Names 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

Large Judgment in Securities Fraud Case (Prove-Up Upon Substantial Submission)<\/strong><\/h2>\n

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\u2019s 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\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. Mr. Markham received helpful assistance in this case from his colleague Antonio Maldonado. The clients thereafter engaged Mr. Markham to enforce these judgments. Case Name: Ngo et al. v. Nguyen et al.<\/em>\u00a0(LA Cty. Sup. Ct., Case No. BC418361).<\/p>\n

Successful Bench Trial Over Disputed Commercial Lease; Sequel Litigation and Appeals<\/strong><\/h2>\n

This case concerned a commercial landlord’s efforts to terminate a commercial lease and the commercial tenants’ efforts to preserve it. Mr. Markham represented the commercial tenants and prevailed on all issues in a bifurcated trial<\/a>, establishing that his clients were entitled to exercise an option to renew the lease for an additional five-year term, and further establishing that they had not violated various insurance covenants set forth in the lease. The landlord took the opposing position on numerous points and argued against renewal of the option on various grounds. Case Name<\/strong>: Yvonne Quin, Trustee of Joseph Quin Family Trust v. Image 2000 Multimedia, Inc.; El Cajon Grand Cocktail Lounge, Inc.; et al.<\/i> (SD Sup. Ct. 37-2007-0062035). Shortly after losing this case, the commercial landlord brought a sequel case to try by other means to evict Mr. Markham’s clients, but it dismissed its case after the trial court sanctioned its representative’s refusal to answer deposition questions and ordered her to answer them. In the meantime, the commercial landlord appealed its loss of the original case and prevailed in this appeal, obtaining a reversal of the judgment in favor of Mr. Markham’s clients. (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Appellate Division, Case No. D055719).\u00a0<\/i>On remand, the parties litigated the issue of attorney’s fees, and Mr. Markham obtained a favorable result for his clients, which the commercial landlord appealed, but this time Mr. Markham was able to prevail on appeal. (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Appellate Division, Case No. D061776).<\/i><\/p>\n

Successful Bench Trial for a Judicial Partition<\/strong><\/h2>\n

This case was for a judicial partition of a valuable residential property that proceeded to a final evidentiary hearing\/trial. The trial court granted Mr. Markham\u2019s client substantially all of the relief that she had requested, which included (1) a decree of partition and partition sale, (2) the entirety of all contested proceeds, (3) a removal of various liens at the other side\u2019s sole expense; and (4) recovery of her attorney\u2019s fees and costs. The property was worth approximately $900,000 at the time of the partition sale, and all of the client\u2019s proceeds were recovered from the sale. Case Name: Tamburo v. Lipari<\/i> (SF. Sup. Ct., Case No. 312202).<\/p>\n

Trial Success: Successful Defense in a Bench Trial For Injunctive Relief<\/strong><\/h2>\n

In this bench trial, Mr. Markham represented the defendants and successfully opposed the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. The plaintiff was a homeowners\u2019 association represented by expert counsel who had won all of their prior cases concerning the matters in dispute. This case concerned land use issues within a homeowner\u2019s association. Case name: Sweetwater Lakes Homeowners Association v. Kramer<\/i>\u00a0(Case No. GIE 029572).<\/p>\n

Trial Success: Successful Defense In Another Bench Trial for Injunctive Relief<\/strong><\/h2>\n

In this bench trial, Mr. Markham represented the defendant and successfully opposed the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. This case concerned an action to quiet title and a related claim for injunctive relief.\u00a0 Case name: Rivet v. Dziensuwski\u00a0<\/em>(SD. Sup. Ct., Case No. DV 017311).<\/p>\n

Successful Stipulated Judgment at Trial Call<\/strong><\/h2>\n

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\u2019s client on the day of the trial call. The stipulated judgment was for approximately $200,000, along with interest. Case Name: Tedcom International, Inc. v. Flamingo Industries, Inc<\/i>. (Alameda Cty. Sup. Ct., 2000-074279)<\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/WM-potrait2.jpg” title_text=”WM-potrait2″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” max_width=”250px” custom_margin=”|15px|15px||false|false” custom_css_free_form=”selector{|| display: inline-block;|| vertical-align: top;||}” border_radii=”on|4px|4px|4px|4px” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/Superlawyer.10-Years.Image_.png” title_text=”Click Here for More Information” url=”https:\/\/profiles.superlawyers.com\/california\/san-diego\/lawyer\/william-a-markham\/dc4b3bd8-338d-4b8e-9d0d-c50dc1b2022e.html?npcmp=slb:badge:sl_badge:dc4b3bd8-338d-4b8e-9d0d-c50dc1b2022e:miles&utm_source=dc4b3bd8-338d-4b8e-9d0d-c50dc1b2022e&utm_campaign=v2-slbadge-anniversary-10&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=www.markhamlawfirm.com” url_new_window=”on” align_tablet=”center” align_phone=”center” align_last_edited=”on|desktop” admin_label=”SuperLawyer.10 Years.with caption” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” max_width=”180px” custom_margin=”|15px|15px||false|false” custom_css_free_form=”selector{|| display: inline-block;|| vertical-align: top;||}” locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/chambersLogo.jpeg” title_text=”chambersLogo” url=”https:\/\/chambers.com\/department\/law-offices-of-william-a-markham-pc-antitrust-usa-spotlight-120:363:9145:1:23699737″ url_new_window=”on” align=”center” align_tablet=”center” align_phone=”center” align_last_edited=”on|desktop” admin_label=”Chambers Spotlight 2025″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” max_width=”180px” custom_margin=”|15px|15px||false|false” custom_css_free_form=”selector{|| display: inline-block;|| vertical-align: top;||}” locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/sl-badge-l-w-2025.png” title_text=”sl-badge-l-w-2025″ url=”https:\/\/profiles.superlawyers.com\/california\/san-diego\/lawyer\/william-a-markham\/dc4b3bd8-338d-4b8e-9d0d-c50dc1b2022e.html?npcmp=slb:badge:sl_badge:dc4b3bd8-338d-4b8e-9d0d-c50dc1b2022e:miles&utm_source=dc4b3bd8-338d-4b8e-9d0d-c50dc1b2022e&utm_campaign=v2-slbadge-anniversary-10&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=www.markhamlawfirm.com” url_new_window=”on” align_tablet=”center” align_phone=”center” align_last_edited=”on|desktop” admin_label=”SuperLawyer’s Badge, 2024″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” max_width=”180px” custom_margin=”|15px|15px||false|false” custom_css_free_form=”selector{|| display: inline-block;|| vertical-align: top;||}” locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

William Markham\u2019s TrialsThree Trial Wins Establishing Substantial, Non-Dischargeable Liability in Case for Commercial Fraud, Alter-Ego Liability, and Bankruptcy Dischargeability Mr. Markham obtained four special jury verdicts for his client after a four-day jury trial in a commercial dispute. Three of the verdicts were against an individual defendant for three kinds of commercial fraud — intentional […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":24894,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"

\r\n
\r\n\r\nTrial Victory: Prevailing Party at Bifurcated Jury Trial\/Bench Trial<\/b>;Prevailing Party on Appeal; and Prevailing Party in Non-Dischargeability Trial in Bankruptcy Court<\/strong>. After a four-day jury trial in a commercial dispute, Mr. Markham obtained four special jury verdicts for his client. Three of the verdicts were against an individual defendant for three kinds of commercial fraud (intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation), and the fourth verdict was against a corporation for breach of a commercial contract. The jury also awarded damages for emotional distress to Mr. Markham\u2019s client, but these damages were disallowed by the court on a technical ground. In the same case, Mr. Markham also obtained a bench verdict in a bifurcated bench trial, so that the individual defendant was adjudicated personally liable for his corporation\u2019s liability to Mr. Markham\u2019s client \u2014 a ruling that rendered the individual liable for attorney\u2019s fees and costs. Mr. Markham also obtained the dismissal before trial of ambitious cross-claims that the defendants had made against his client. On appeal, Mr. Markham obtained a reversal of the dismissal of a third defendant, who had been dismissed on the pleadings before trial. Also on appeal, Mr. Markham obtain an affirmance of the judgment in favor of his client against the other two defendants on all grounds. One of the individual defendants then attempted to discharge the judgment against him in bankruptcy proceedings: after a three-day bench trial, Mr. Markham obtained a ruling of non-dischargeability for his client from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California. This court merged the state-court judgment into a new federal judgment, which is non-dischargeable. The final amount of this judgment is $639,877.53, which was rendered in addition to the \u00a0$185,000 that Mr. Markham had already recovered for his client before the bankruptcy by partial satisfactions.\u00a0In these related cases, the principal defendant\u2019s strategy was to oppose Mr. Markham\u2019s client so relentlessly that she would ultimately acquiesce in his commercial fraud rather than pursue the matter further. This strategy was unfortunate for everyone concerned, but for Mr. Markham\u2019s client it was a matter of principle to establish that the defendants had defrauded her. She prevailed on all grounds from the start and clearly established that she had been a victim of calculated commercial fraud. Case Name:\u00a0Collins v. Defendants' Names 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).\r\n\r\nLarge Judgment in Securities Fraud Case (Prove-Up Upon Substantial Submission)<\/strong>. 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\u00a0defendants vigorously opposed Mr. Markham until it became obvious that they would lose on the merits, after which they defaulted.\u00a0By these judgments, which were obtained upon a substantial prove-up submission, Mr. Markham\u2019s 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. \u00a0 The judgments that Mr. Markham obtained\u00a0constitute 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. \u00a0In 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. \u00a0Mr. Markham received helpful assistance in this case from his colleague Antonio Maldonado. The clients have engaged Mr. Markham to enforce these judgments. Case Name: \u00a0Ngo et al. v. Nguyen et al.<\/em>\u00a0(LA Cty. Sup. Ct., Case No. BC418361).\r\n\r\nTrial Victory: Successful Enforcement of Commercial Tenant\u2019s Rights in a Bench Trial<\/b>. Mr. Markham tried this case before the trial judge, who granted judgment to his client on all grounds, deeming them to be the prevailing party in their claims against the Defendant, and deeming them to be the prevailing party in the Defendant\u2019s 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\u2019s 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:\u00a0Image 2000 Multimedia, Inc. v. Joseph Quin Family Trust<\/i>\u00a0(S.D. Cty. Sup. Ct., Case No. 37 2007 00062035 CU-BC-EC).\r\n\r\nSuccessful Follow-Up Vindication of Commercial Tenant\u2019s Rights<\/b>. 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 substantial 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.\u00a0 Case Name:\u00a0Joseph Quin Family Trust v. Image 2000 Multimedia, Inc.<\/i>\u00a0(S.D. County, Case No. 37 2008 00102257 CU-UD-EC).\r\n\r\nSuccessful Bench Trial for a Judicial Partition. <\/strong>In a judicial partition that proceeded to a final evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted Mr. Markham\u2019s client substantially all of the relief that she had requested, which included (1) a decree of partition and partition sale, (2) the entirety of all contested proceeds, (3) a removal of various liens at the other side\u2019s sole expense; and (4) attorney\u2019s fees and costs. The property was worth approximately $900,000 at the time of the partition sale, and all of the client\u2019s proceeds were recovered from the sale. Case Name: Tamburo v. Lipari<\/i> (SF. Sup. Ct., Case No. 312202).\r\n\r\nTrial Success: Successful Defense in a Bench Trial For Injunctive Relief<\/b>. In a bench trial in which Mr. Markham represented the defendants, the trial court refused to grant the requested injunctive relief to Plaintiff, a homeowners\u2019 association. This case concerned land use issues within a homeowner\u2019s association. Case name:\u00a0Sweetwater Lakes Homeowners Association v. Kramer<\/i>\u00a0(Case No. GIE 029572).\r\n\r\nTrial Success: Successful Defense In Another Bench Trial for Injunctive Relief<\/strong>. In a bench trial in which Mr. Markham represented the defendant, the trial court declined to grant the injunctive relief that the plaintiff sought. This case concerned an action to quiet title and a related claim for injunctive relief.\u00a0 Case name:\u00a0Rivet v. Dziensuwski\u00a0<\/em>(SD. Sup. Ct., Case No. DV 017311).\r\n\r\nSuccessful Stipulated Judgment at Trial Call<\/strong>.\u00a0 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\u2019s client on the day of the trial call. The stipulated judgment was for approximately $200,000, along with interest. Case Name: Tedcom International, Inc. v. Flamingo Industries, Inc<\/i>. (Alameda Cty. Sup. Ct., 2000-074279)\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-24921","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nWilliam Markham's Trials<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"William Markham, a Harvard-trained attorney, tried many small matters early in his career as well as several substantial disputes after becoming an experienced, knowledgeable trial lawyer.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"noindex, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"William Markham\u2019s Trials\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"William Markham, a Harvard-trained attorney, tried many small matters early in his career as well as several substantial disputes after becoming an experienced, knowledgeable trial lawyer.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/our-team\/markham-antitrust-lawyer\/bills-trials\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawOfficesofWilliamMarkhamPC\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-04-18T12:00:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/sandiego-harbor-2.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1917\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1074\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/our-team\/markham-antitrust-lawyer\/bills-trials\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/our-team\/markham-antitrust-lawyer\/bills-trials\/\",\"name\":\"William Markham's Trials\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-01-26T12:10:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-04-18T12:00:57+00:00\",\"description\":\"William Markham, a Harvard-trained attorney, tried many small matters early in his career as well as several substantial disputes after becoming an experienced, knowledgeable trial lawyer.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/our-team\/markham-antitrust-lawyer\/bills-trials\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/our-team\/markham-antitrust-lawyer\/bills-trials\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/our-team\/markham-antitrust-lawyer\/bills-trials\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Our Team\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/our-team\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"William Markham\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/our-team\/markham-antitrust-lawyer\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":4,\"name\":\"William Markham\u2019s Trials\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/\",\"name\":\"LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C.\",\"description\":\"Trial and Appellate Attorneys in San Diego\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#organization\",\"name\":\"LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C.\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/sandiego-harbor-2.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/sandiego-harbor-2.webp\",\"width\":1917,\"height\":1074,\"caption\":\"LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C.\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawOfficesofWilliamMarkhamPC\/\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"William Markham's Trials","description":"William Markham, a Harvard-trained attorney, tried many small matters early in his career as well as several substantial disputes after becoming an experienced, knowledgeable trial lawyer.","robots":{"index":"noindex","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"William Markham\u2019s Trials","og_description":"William Markham, a Harvard-trained attorney, tried many small matters early in his career as well as several substantial disputes after becoming an experienced, knowledgeable trial lawyer.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/our-team\/markham-antitrust-lawyer\/bills-trials\/","og_site_name":"LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawOfficesofWilliamMarkhamPC\/","article_modified_time":"2025-04-18T12:00:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1917,"height":1074,"url":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/sandiego-harbor-2.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/our-team\/markham-antitrust-lawyer\/bills-trials\/","url":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/our-team\/markham-antitrust-lawyer\/bills-trials\/","name":"William Markham's Trials","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-01-26T12:10:21+00:00","dateModified":"2025-04-18T12:00:57+00:00","description":"William Markham, a Harvard-trained attorney, tried many small matters early in his career as well as several substantial disputes after becoming an experienced, knowledgeable trial lawyer.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/our-team\/markham-antitrust-lawyer\/bills-trials\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/our-team\/markham-antitrust-lawyer\/bills-trials\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/our-team\/markham-antitrust-lawyer\/bills-trials\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Our Team","item":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/our-team\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"William Markham","item":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/our-team\/markham-antitrust-lawyer\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"William Markham\u2019s Trials"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/","name":"LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C.","description":"Trial and Appellate Attorneys in San Diego","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#organization","name":"LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C.","url":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en","@id":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/sandiego-harbor-2.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/sandiego-harbor-2.webp","width":1917,"height":1074,"caption":"LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C."},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawOfficesofWilliamMarkhamPC\/"]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24921","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24921"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24921\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39306,"href":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24921\/revisions\/39306"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24894"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24921"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}