Three Trial Victories in Related Cases for 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 and additional jury verdicts against his corporation for breach of a commercial contract and restitution; (2) a bench verdict that established the individual defendant’s alter-ego liability for the judgment against his 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 settlement of all claims against the second individual defendant; (7) a superseding bankruptcy judgment against the first individual defendant after a three-day bench trial; this judgment decreed that the defendant’s debt to Mr. Markham’s client was non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, and it set the amount of this debt at $639,877.53, plus post-judgment interest; and (8) leave from the bankruptcy court to record an abstract of the new federal judgment. Finally, after all of these proceedings, this matter was resolved by a settlement agreement.
In this matter, 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 resolutly opposed this strategy as a matter of principle and refused to relinquish her claims. By our work, she prevailed in all of the above proceedings, but at a great cost in time and expense in a case that began in 2007 and ended only in 2015. 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).
Obtained Prove-Up Judgment After Defendants Defaulted Before Trial
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 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.
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’s 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. These judgments constituted 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 very 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 Win for Commercial Tenants After Their Landlord Refused to Renew Their Commercial Lease
loading ...
Mr. Markham tried this case before the trial judge, who granted judgment to his commercial clients on their claims and also on the defendant’s cross-claims against them. This case concerned various disputes between a commercial landlord and commercial tenants who operated a highly successful business. Mr Markham represented the commercial tenants. The trial court found that the tenants on all grounds, ruling that they were entitled to renew their lease for an additional five years, and that they were in compliance with the lease’s complicated insurance provisions. 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).
Defeat of Commercial Landlord’s Sequel Lawsuit Against Commercial Tenants
After losing at trial in the first case (see above), a commercial landlord brought a new case against Mr. Markham’s clients, who were commercial tenants that operated a substantial business at the property in question. After five months of arduous litigation, the landlord dropped the case day before its representative was ordered to answer further deposition questions concerning the landlord’s 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)