Case Result Summaries
The case recoveries and results shown on the opening page of this website were achieved by various California law firms unrelated to Legion Counsel and were dependent on the facts of each case. The results will differ if based on different facts. No particular results can be guaranteed by any lawyer. The following is a summary of the facts of the cases portrayed:
Unfair Competition
Facts: Plaintiffs represented a class of California consumers who bought Microsoft products and software. They contended that Microsoft denied consumers free choice among software products and as a consequence the class paid billions in overcharges and Microsoft earned illegal profits.
Result: The parties settled the class action with Microsoft agreeing to provide vouchers up to $1.1 billion for class members. Consumers were also granted vouchers for various other programs, not necessarily from Microsoft, with any unclaimed settlement proceeds to go to California public schools.
Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
Facts: Plaintiff company had hired defendant as its sales representative to help source products from Asia for its business as a distributor of cosmetic accessories. Plaintiff claimed that defendant had competed through another distribution company she had established. After resigning, defendant retained confidential customer information and trade secrets for her own use. Defendant claimed that commissions had not been paid in full and that plaintiff had slandered her.
Result: Verdict for $869,000
Misrepresentation and Fraud
Facts: Plaintiff purchased franchise rights for two counties to sell Closet Factory franchises from defendant company. Plaintiff ultimately went out of business. Plaintiff contended that defendant had misrepresented revenues realized in the area before the purchase, his exclusive rights to the areas, and the need to have a contractor's license to operate the business. There was testimony that the defendant had intended to sell its products below cost to drive out competition and use franchise fees as its source of income during this period.
Result: Verdict for $800,000
Breach of Agreement
Facts: Plaintiff operated a catering truck concession and entered into a partnership agreement with defendant granting him a 50% interest in exchange for his loan to the business. Defendant made representations to plaintiff causing him to sign over ownership to the business property and all his stock in the corporation on a "temporary" basis. Thereafter, defendant ousted plaintiff from the business.
Plaintiff alleged that he was entitled to half of his business returned, that he was charged usurious interest and damages for defendant's encumbering partnership assets without the consent of plaintiff.
Result: Arbitration award for $1,800,000 to plaintiff
Unfair Competition
Facts: The plaintiff/cross defendant company was a large insurance brokerage firm which specialized in servicing school districts statewide. It sub-contracted many of these services out to the defendants/cross-complainants. They discussed a merger but could not agree. Subsequent actions were considered violations of rights by each against the other. The defendants allegedly told clients that the plaintiff had been overbilling. The plaintiff terminated their agreement and solicited defendants' risk management consultants since, without the client contracts controlled by plaintiff, defendant couldn't continue in business.
Result: Settlement of $662,500 primarily for business losses incurred by defendants.
Business Interference
Facts: The defendant/cross-complainant wholesale distributor entered into a contract with the plaintiffs/cross-defendant manufacturers for the sale and purchase of goods. Defendant claimed that the goods were inferior and shipments late. The defendant alleged that plaintiffs sent a letter to defendant's largest supplier threatening potential litigation and sanctions. It was claimed that this caused defendant to suffer a loss of business and customers.
Result: Verdict: $3,250,000
Construction Defect
Facts: The plaintiffs had purchased adjacent property from defendants. Thereafter the properties suffered from various defective conditions. The pools moved and water flowed underneath house foundations. It was determined that the structures were constructed on partially compacted fill. It was contended that defendants concealed the defective grading and flooding conditions.
Result: Arbitration award of $1,045,167
Patent Infringement
Facts: Plaintiff held a patent for hand-held telecommunication testing equipment. Action was brought contending that the product of defendant infringed on their patent. Defendant contended that plaintiff's patent was invalid.
Result: Verdict for $1,015,000
|
