LITIGATION SUCCESSES: SIGNIFICANT ANTITRUST EXPERIENCE, TRIAL VICTORIES AND LARGE SETTLEMENTS

William Markham is our lead litigator and the head of our litigation group. He has litigated substantial antitrust matters both in trial court and on appeal (click here). He has also tried cases to final verdict and won at trial, obtaining jury verdicts and bench decisions for his clients in closely contested litigations (click here). In addition, he has succeeded at negotiating large settlements for his clients in cases that he would have taken to trial if necessary (click here for a partial listing). This page lists only his most notable recent successes.

ANTITRUST EXPERIENCE

Antitrust Litigation: Successful Defense In Criminal/Civil Matter. Mr. Markham successfully defended a manufacturer of polypropylene products against potential claims of price-fixing and horizontal market allocation brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. This supplier was initially designated a “target” in an ongoing criminal investigation undertaken by the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division. Mr. Markham persuaded the DOJ to close its investigation without filing a complaint, and he persuaded would-be civil litigants not to seek relief against his client. In this case, Mr. Markham’s client obtained an unqualified and prompt release from any possible liability or obligation.

Antitrust Litigation: Successful Coordination of Antitrust Amnesty. Mr. Markham successfully negotiated and concluded a comprehensive antitrust amnesty agreement between his client and the US Department of Justice, Antitrust Division. Under this agreement, Mr. Markham’s client was absolved of all responsibility in a matter that eventually led to criminal convictions and major civil settlements against all of the other participants in a conspiracy to fix prices and allocate markets by territory.

Antitrust Litigation: Pending Resolution of Standards-Setting Matter. In this case, Mr. Markham has tentatively prevailed upon a prominent national standards-setting agency to revise two of its private standards for certain kinds of construction materials. The revised standards, if adopted, will allow the inclusion of an entire category of products that are made by Mr. Markham’s client. In this matter, Mr. Markham alleged that certain "interested" members of the standard-setting agency had deceived the agency into adopting standards that improperly excluded the category of products made by Mr. Markham’s client and others. These members did so in order to exclude the unwelcome competition posed by this line of products. Mr. Markham alleged that the conduct constituted an impermissible restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and he asserted corresponding claims against the offending members, as well as related claims against the standards-setting agency itself for failing to enforce its own procedures properly. In this matter, Mr. Markham has interacted with a national trade association that supports his client's position. The result, if concluded, will constitute an unqualified success for Mr. Markham’s client and all other similarly situated manufacturers.

Antitrust Litigation: Pending Appellate Litigation of AT&T Infrastructure Matter. Mr. Markham has been the lead counsel in a case brought by a manufacturer of a necessary component used to connect new property developments in California and Nevada to AT&T’s underground infrastructure. Mr. Markham’s client has asserted that AT&T and one of its suppliers acted in concert to force substantially all property developers in California and Nevada to purchase the product in question only from this one supplier, but not from any of the supplier’s rivals, the largest of which is Mr. Markham’s client. According to this challenge, AT&T and the supplier agreed to exclude all of the supplier’s competitors as part of a larger effort to subject the property developers to a price manipulation, by which the property developers have been forced to pay substantially higher prices for the product in question. The trial court substantially overruled Defendants’ motions to dismiss and overruled their first round of motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted Defendants’ second round of motions for summary judgment on the basis of a very specific issue of fact that is now on appeal. The trial court dismissed the case more than three years after it began and shortly before its scheduled trial. Mr. Markham has been engaged to appeal this matter, which is now pending before the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. Defendants changed their challenged conduct almost immediately after Mr. Markham filed suit. Case name: Jensen Enterprises, Inc. v. Oldcastle Precast, Inc. et al. (9th Cir., Case No. 09-15861).

Antitrust Litigation: Alleged Price-Fixing by Major Oil Refineries. Mr. Markham successfully advised a group of distributors of petroleum by-products in a price-fixing matter that concerned the prices at which a dozen major petroleum refineries sold a petroleum by-product.

Antitrust Litigation: Intellectual Property Disputes. Early in his career Mr. Markham worked as an associate in the antitrust practice of a major international law firm (Coudert Brothers). During this period, he principally litigated claims and cross-claims under the Sherman Act in disputes that concerned (1) the alleged misuse of copyrights for computer software; and (2) competition among service-providers for the maintenance of computer hardware and other kinds of office equipment. Some of these cases were major, prominent antitrust cases that received significant national attention in the early 1990s.

You can read more about our antitrust practice here, and you might also wish to read two articles on antitrust law by Mr. Markham that discuss the essential principles and doctrines of U.S. antitrust law.

TRIAL VICTORIES: JURY VERDICTS AND BENCH TRIALS

Trial Victory: Successful Jury Trial/Follow-Up Bench Trial. Mr. Markham tried this case to a jury, representing the plaintiff in a substantial commercial dispute that gave rise to claims of commercial fraud and breach of contract. After a four-day trial, Mr. Markham's client prevailed on all of her causes of action, obtaining jury verdicts on four counts -- breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation. The jury also awarded damages for emotional distress arising from Defendants' fraudulent conduct. The next stage of the case was a bench trial, which Mr. Markham also won, persuading the trial court to impose alter-ego liability, so that the principal defendant was not only personally liable for fraud, but also personally responsible for the corporate defendant's adjudicated liability to Mr. Markham's client. The amount of the final judgment was $360,576.20, including attorney's fees and costs, but excluding an additional $30,000 that the jury awarded for emotional distress, as the trial court ruled that such damages could not be awarded to the plaintiff because she sued in her capacity as a trustee of her own inter vivos trust. If the $30,000 is reinstated on appeal, the full amount of the judgment will be $390,576.20. Defendants Kenneth Noorigian and Manufactured Structures International, Inc. are jointly and severally liable for this judgment, and Mr. Markham has already collected from them all of the allowed damages, but not yet any part of the awarded attorney's fees or costs because of Defendants' pending appeal. Defendants have appealed from this judgment, and the Collins Trust has engaged Mr. Markham to handle the appeal and also to bring a cross-appeal to have the damages for emotional distress reinstated. Case Name: Collins v. Manufactured Structures International, Inc. (SD. Cty. Sup. Ct., Case No. GIC 880706).

Large Judgment in Securities Fraud Case. 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. In this matter, he worked with his partner, Mr. Maldonado. By these judgments, the plaintiffs obtained 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. These judgments 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, uncover, and explain Defendants’ complicated scheme to defraud many victims over a period of several years. Case Name: Ngo et al. v. Nguyen et al. (LA Cty. Sup. Ct., Case No. BC418361).

Trial Victory: Successful Enforcement of Commercial Tenant’s Rights in a Bench Trial. 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’s cross-claims against them. This case concerned various disputes between a commercial tenant and a commercial landlord. 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 has appealed from this judgment, and Mr. Markham is handling 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. 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).

Trial Success: Successful Defense in a Bench Trial For Injunctive Relief. 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' association. This case concerned land use issues within a homeowner’s association. Case name: Sweetwater Lakes Homeowners Association v. Kramer (Case No. GIE 029572).

Trial Success: Successful Defense In Another Bench Trial for Injunctive Relief. 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. Case name: Rivet v. Dziensuwski (SD. Sup. Ct., Case No. DV 017311).

Successful Bench Trial for a Judicial Partition. In a judicial partition that proceeded to a final evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted Mr. Markham's 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’s sole expense; and (4) attorney's fees and costs. The property was worth approximately $900,000 at the time of the partition sale, and all of the client’s proceeds were recovered from the sale. Case Name: Tamburo v. Lipari (SF. Sup. Ct., Case No. 312202).

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 approximately $200,000, along with interest. Case Name: Tedcom International, Inc. v. Flamingo Industries, Inc. (Alameda Cty. Sup. Ct., 2000-074279)

You can read more about our litigation practice here, and you might wish to review two articles on trials and litigation that Mr. Markham has authored.

PARTIAL LISTING OF SUCCESSFUL SETTLEMENTS

$10.4 Million Settlement in Complex Real Estate Dispute. In a confidential settlement agreement, Mr. Markham recovered approximately $10.4 million for a trust whose trustees had made complex, improper transfers of substantial real estate interests from the trust to a partnership. This case depended upon complex issues of land valuation and fiduciary responsibility.

$4.4 Million Settlement in Complex Eminent Domain Litigation. In a complex eminent domain proceeding, Mr. Markham represented a large polypropylene factory located in Alameda County. The Oakland Unified School District condemned the property and made an initial offer of approximately $2.8 million. After a substantial litigation, the condemnor agreed to pay approximately $4.4 million for its taking. Case name: Oakland Unified School District v. Cheng (Alameda Cty. Sup. Ct., Case No. 2002-051449).

$3.1 Million Settlement in Cutting-Edge Eminent Domain Litigation. In a complex, novel eminent domain proceeding, Mr. Markham represented the owner of commercial property that the City of Santa Cruz chose to condemn and take so that it could transfer ownership to a private developer. This case was brought after the US Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo case that such takings were permissible upon a proper showing. The condemnor's original offer was approximately $1.6 million, and its final stipulated award was worth approximately $3.1 million. Case name: City of Santa Cruz v. Lau (Santa Cruz Cty. Sup. Ct., Case No. CV 151983).

$2.2 Million Settlement of an Insurer’s Bad-Faith Denial of Insurance Obligations. On behalf of an insured – who was a prominent sales executive of a Fortune 500 company – Mr. Markham brought suit in federal court against a disability insurer for refusing in bad faith to honor a disability insurance contract. The insurer's original offer was to pay nothing and waive costs. The final settlement was for approximately $2.2 million. This case was litigated in federal court under the ERISA statutes.