Cases
Case Results: Obtained a directed verdict on all claims in a highly complex, two-week copyright infringement trial in the Federal District Court for the District of Arizona. The Plaintiff alleged our client infringed upon Plaintiff's various copyrights related to sales-training material. The allegedly infringing material was used over the course of nearly three years in various sales seminars throughout the country. The material was presented to hundreds of salespersons contracted by our client to market, sell,
install specialized geothermal HVAC systems for commercial
residential use. The Plaintiff argued that the alleged infringement resulted in several millions of dollars in increased revenue
positioned our client for an acquisition of more than $400 million.
At the close of Plaintiff's case, we moved for a directed verdict, arguing that Plaintiff failed to prove our client, as opposed to the co-defendant, played any part in the alleged infringement. We further argued that Plaintiff also failed to prove that the increase in revenue
company value was attributable to the alleged infringement. Following the Court's Order granting judgment in favor of our client, Plaintiff agreed to pay a large portion of our client's attorney fees
costs incurred during the course of the litigation. The ACT Group v. WaterFurnace International, Inc., et al., November 2015. United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Obtained a unanimous jury verdict in favor of our client in a highly-contested civil assault trial. While attending a Phoenix Coyotes' hockey game on Valentine's Day 2009, our client, his wife,
their friends, were harassed by another fan, the Plaintiff, throughout the game. Plaintiff's harassment became more obscene
vulgar as the game progressed. Eventually, the Plaintiff advanced toward our client, his wife,
friends - who were seated 25 feet away
two rows down - verbally threatening their lives
ultimately spitting on our client's wife. Our client took action in defense of his wife
others nearby, hitting the Plaintiff as he continued his violent approach. We argued that our client acted reasonably under the circumstances
blamed the Plaintiff for starting the altercation.
Plaintiff alleged multiple injuries
lost wages in the subsequent years. It became apparent, however, that his allegations were either fabricated or highly exaggerated, in his attempt to hit the lottery. Plaintiff's counsel asked the jury to award $3.13 million. In closing, we argued that Plaintiff started the fight
was therefore 100% responsible for any
all injuries. Alternatively, we argued that the security personnel were also partially at fault for not ejecting the Plaintiff earlier in the game. After approximately 1 hour
15 minutes of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of our client
awarded Plaintiff nothing. Franklin v. Clemett, et al., October 2014. Maricopa County Superior Court.
Selected as a Top Ten Defense Verdict of 2014 by Arizona Attorney Magazine .
Obtained summary judgment in our client's favor in a case involving claims of trademark infringement
unfair competition. The Plaintiff was a tour company that offered day tours of the Gr
Canyon. Our client was a competing tour company that began by offering private, overnight trips to the Gr
Canyon - but later exp
ed its operation to include day trips. Plaintiff claimed that our client infringed upon Plaintiff's trademark
trade dress by designing a similar logo
attaching that logo to its shuttles
vans in the same manner as Plaintiff. Plaintiff further argued that our client engaged in unfair competition by using a nearly identical tour ticket as a form of a receipt for local hotel concierge who booked tours on behalf of guests. Finally, Plaintiff also argued that our client breached an alleged non-competition agreement by exp
ing its operation to include day tours.
We filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two logos. Although both logos included depictions of the Gr
Canyon, the depictions were of different rock formations,
both logos included the parties' respective names on them. We also argued that the use of the tour ticket was functional
thus did not fall under the Lanham Act's protections. Lastly, we argued that the parties never consummated an agreement not to compete
thus our client should not be precluded from offering day tours. The Court agreed with us on all issues
granted summary judgment in client's favor on all claims. Angel's Gate, Inc. v. All-Star Gr
Canyon Tours, Inc., September 2013. United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
