In 2011, Mr. Case celebrates
25 years as a practicing lawyer in the State of California. Among other specialties, Mr. Case has been actively involved in the rapidly changing field of Internet law since 1995.
Мы можем помогать клиентам из России и Украины.
Many of Mr. Case's referrals come from out-of-state parties or lawyers looking for high quality legal representation in California, but wanting to avoid the high cost of major national law firms or larger local firms.
PLEASE ASK US ABOUT OUR ALTERNATIVE PRICING, INCLUDING FLAT FEES AND DISCOUNTS.
We understand that this is a difficult time. The worldwide financial crisis is devastating to individuals and small businesses. If we determine we can help you, we will work with you to find a cost-effective solution to your problems. We can propose flat fees, discounts on hourly rates, project pricing, and blends of flat fees and contingency fees. At this time, we cannot accept any case without an upfront payment, and we cannot work only on contingency, but we are ready to talk with you about how you can accomplish what you want for a price you can afford.
"ANTI-SLAPP" PROCEEDINGS: Mr. Case successfully opposed two special motions to strike under the "anti-SLAPP" statute, Code of Civil Procedure §425.16. This controversial law, originally intended to protect constitutional rights, is the subject of much abuse as a litigation tool. Both opponents appealed the orders denying their motions to strike, and Mr. Case prevailed in both appeals.
In one of those appeals, Mr. Case filed an early motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the appeal was frivolous and solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. The California Court of Appeal granted that motion, dismissed the appeal, and expressly found that the appeal was frivolous and solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, before the trial court record was completed and before any appellate briefs were required to be prepared or filed. This outcome saved Mr. Case's client considerable time and expense.
Many defendants file such motions to take advantage of a provision in the law staying discovery until both the motion and an appeal are resolved, even if the defendant loses at all stages. This procedural tactic can delay a plaintiff's case for a year or more, except in exceptional cases providing grounds for early dismissal of an appeal. It is unusual for the Court of Appeal to grant a motion to dismiss, especially on grounds of frivolousness, but Mr. Case was successful in his efforts.
TICKETMASTER: In 2008, Mr. Case settled a lawsuit filed by Ticketmaster LLC in U.S. District Court against Mr. Case's clients, in a dispute involving online ticket orders, computer technology, and the secondary market for ticket resales in the U.S.
LOVE'S BBQ: In November 2007, Mr. Case settled the last of numerous cases involving the beloved Southern California restaurant chain, Love's Wood-Pit Barbecue. Unfortunately, the last Love's BBQ restaurant in California has closed for good. On the bright side, the Love's BBQ sauces and products can be purchased on the company's website,
www.LovesBBQ.com EVEREST v. McNEIL - TRIAL and APPEAL: On April 16, 2007, the California Court of Appeal affirmed (on all grounds except one minor issue) the judgment in Everest Investors 8 v. McNeil Partners, entered after a 3-1/2 week bench trial conducted in Los Angeles Superior Court in 2005. In that trial, the court entered a $4.5 million judgment in favor of Mr. Case's clients and against defendants, including punitive damages of $2.5 million against the controlling individual, involving a general partner's breach of fiduciary duty to the limited partners in a merger transaction. Previously, in 2003, the California Court of Appeal held that limited partners had standing to pursue individual claims against the general partner and were not barred by any alleged failure to bring a "derivative" lawsuit on behalf of limited partnerships. Please see the Links page (left menu) for a copy of these appellate decisions.
Supplement: The California Supreme Court denied defendants' petition for review, and the California Court of Appeal denied defendants' petition for rehearing. This judgment is final.
eUNIVERSE: On October 16, 2006, the U.S. District Court dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted against Mr. Case's client, a corporate financial officer, wrongly accused of fraud and misrepresentation involving the audited financial statements of eUniverse, Inc. That company, now known as Intermix Media, Inc., is the operator of MySpace.com. This case was the last in a series of shareholder lawsuits pending against the client and other officers and directors for 3-1/2 years. All cases were resolved successfully, by dismissal or settlement, in the client's favor.
U.S. NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS: In Kenna v. United States District Court, 435 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2006), the first federal appeal court decision under the U.S. Crime Victims' Rights Act, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's denial of a crime victim's right to speak at the sentencing of a perpetrator of a massive $95 million financial fraud. Please see the Links page for a copy of that decision.
IF YOU ARE IN THE ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS, PLEASE READ: Mr. Case does not act as an agent or manager, does not represent talent to producers or promoters, does not make pitches, does not find gigs, does not find investors, does not find money, and does not do work on spec.
A Comment About The Newsletter: This website features an Intellectual Property Newsletter with dynamic content powered by LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell. Mr. Case does not review the content in the Newsletter and does not vouch for its accuracy.
The Newsletter addresses topics of general interest such as copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and the Internet. Although it may also talk about patents, Mr. Case is not a patent lawyer and does not give legal advice regarding patents, patent prosecution, or patent litigation.