Showing posts with label frivolous lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label frivolous lawsuit. Show all posts
Monday, January 12, 2015
Judge to Make Niro Firm Pay Millions in Sanctions Over False Declarations
Judge to Make Niro Firm Pay Millions in Sanctions Over False Declarations
Scott Graham
January 9, 2015
SAN FRANCISCO — An Illinois federal judge has sanctioned Raymond Niro Sr. and his law firm in a wireless patent case, finding that Niro and three of his colleagues knew about a client's false declarations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office before filing a lawsuit on his behalf.
U.S. District Judge William Hart on Friday held Niro, Haller & Niro jointly and severally liable for what's likely to be several million dollars in attorney fees assessed against Intellect Wireless and inventor Daniel Henderon. The ruling ends a year of hotly contested wrangling over what Niro did and didn't know, delivering a black eye to one of the country's most prominent patent lawyers.
"The false presentation of Henderson's activity and knowledge justifies making Niro jointly and severally liable with IW for attorney fees and costs," Hart wrote in his order.
Niro did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment Friday evening. Niro, partners Paul Vickrey and David Mahalek and former partner Paul Gibbons have filed declarations saying they knew nothing about an email Henderson sent to his patent prosecutor in 2007 raising loud alarms about false declarations filed with the PTO. Henderson had warned that false declarations filed on his behalf presented a "potentially lethal blow" to his patent portfolio, and asked that his litigation counsel at the Niro firm be consulted about it.
HTC Corp. and its attorneys at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton say it was "inconceivable" that Niro and his colleagues didn't hear about Henderson's concerns long before suing HTC in 2009.
Hart sided with HTC on Friday, concluding from the Niro firm's unwillingness to produce certain documents in discovery that the lawyers knew Henderson had lied about his invention at least by 2009, "if not before."
"Therefore, Niro is liable for all reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred by HTC," Hart wrote.
HTC has asked for $4.7 million, plus additional fees for briefing the fee motion...
Read more: http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202714649438/Judge-to-Make-Niro-Firm-Pay-Millions-in-Sanctions-Over-False-Declarations#ixzz3OcTpq0GP
Monday, June 4, 2012
Discovery suddenly stayed in Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz defamation suit against this blogger
See all posts re Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura Larkins
I got a minute order from the San Diego Superior Court in the mail today. The timing is very, very strange. The last hearing in the case was March 9, 2012--two months and three weeks ago. My discussion with Commander Darin Fotheringham in the Santa Barbara Sheriff's office two days ago is the only event that I can connect even remotely to this bolt out of the blue.
June 1, 2012
Commander Darin Fotheringham
Office of the Sheriff of Santa Barbara
Dear Commander Fotheringham:
I was amused that on the very day I contacted you about my subpoena for business records from the Sheriff of Santa Barbara showing that Deputy Michael Carlson and his sister Robin Donlan involved Chula Vista Elementary School District in criminal actions, Judge Judith Hayes suspended all discovery in the case at issue.
My, my. The timing is fascinating. No papers had been filed asking that discovery be stayed. In fact, no papers had been filed in this case for two months.
I bow to your amazing—what shall I call it?—luck, perhaps?
Sincerely,
Maura Larkins
Note: I tried to fax the above letter to the fax number Commander Fotheringham gave me on May 30, 2012 for faxing the subpoena to him. My fax machine dialed the number, then the call was picked up. Next I heard a raspberry sound, and soon a man was telling me that if I'd like to make a call, I should hang up and dial again. I guess the guys who work for the Sheriff of Santa Barbara like to have fun. They seem to be really funny guys.
I think that it is highly unlikely that Commander Fotheringham or Sheriff Bill Brown contacted Judge Hayes. Here's the scenario I came up with for what most likely happened:
Commander Fotheringham may have talked to Michael Carlson. Michael Carlson went into cover-up mode (again). Carlson seems to have no remorse at all, not even for causing problems for the Sheriff of Santa Barbara. My guess is he thinks of himself as a victim. He has never indicated any regret for all the problems his actions caused to me, to my school district (including $100,000s in legal fees to defend Carlson's sister and others), and to the children in my school.
I imagine Michael Carlson would have called his attorney, Deborah Garvin, after Commander Fotheringham spoke to him. And perhaps his sister, Robin Donlan, who turned his misdemeanor into a huge mess for Chula Vista Elementary School District.
Deborah Garvin and Robin Donlan would probably each have contacted Dan Shinoff of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, with whom they worked in the earlier case involving Carlson.
And that's where the chain of likely events gets murky for me. What happened next???? I'm simply unable to conjure an explanation for what could have happened.
The minute order I received from Judge Hayes says that discovery is stayed.
But actually it's a lot more complicated. Hayes also finally made a decision about two of the three March 9, 2012 motions. After almost three months of silence, she finally denied my motion to set aside the summary adjudication, even though I was able to provide documentary evidence proving that the decision was deeply flawed.
For the past two months and three weeks she pretended that discovery was open--even gave us a discovery cut-off date--but obviously it was never really open, since the summary adjudication was never set aside. I suspected that I would be shut down the minute I started discovery, so I gave myself a long vacation (including a month in Washington DC) and waited as long as possible to start discovery.
Judge Hayes is still delaying (until August 27, 2012) her decision on Stutz' motion to strike my answer. There is absolutely no case law to support such a decision in a case with a history like this one. San Diego County Office of Education has also refused to allow discovery in this case. It even hired Stutz law firm to make sure Diane Crosier didn't have to take a deposition or produce documents. I recently filed a public records request to at least get the records.
I got a minute order from the San Diego Superior Court in the mail today. The timing is very, very strange. The last hearing in the case was March 9, 2012--two months and three weeks ago. My discussion with Commander Darin Fotheringham in the Santa Barbara Sheriff's office two days ago is the only event that I can connect even remotely to this bolt out of the blue.
June 1, 2012
Commander Darin Fotheringham
Office of the Sheriff of Santa Barbara
Dear Commander Fotheringham:
I was amused that on the very day I contacted you about my subpoena for business records from the Sheriff of Santa Barbara showing that Deputy Michael Carlson and his sister Robin Donlan involved Chula Vista Elementary School District in criminal actions, Judge Judith Hayes suspended all discovery in the case at issue.
My, my. The timing is fascinating. No papers had been filed asking that discovery be stayed. In fact, no papers had been filed in this case for two months.
I bow to your amazing—what shall I call it?—luck, perhaps?
Sincerely,
Maura Larkins
Note: I tried to fax the above letter to the fax number Commander Fotheringham gave me on May 30, 2012 for faxing the subpoena to him. My fax machine dialed the number, then the call was picked up. Next I heard a raspberry sound, and soon a man was telling me that if I'd like to make a call, I should hang up and dial again. I guess the guys who work for the Sheriff of Santa Barbara like to have fun. They seem to be really funny guys.
I think that it is highly unlikely that Commander Fotheringham or Sheriff Bill Brown contacted Judge Hayes. Here's the scenario I came up with for what most likely happened:
Commander Fotheringham may have talked to Michael Carlson. Michael Carlson went into cover-up mode (again). Carlson seems to have no remorse at all, not even for causing problems for the Sheriff of Santa Barbara. My guess is he thinks of himself as a victim. He has never indicated any regret for all the problems his actions caused to me, to my school district (including $100,000s in legal fees to defend Carlson's sister and others), and to the children in my school.
I imagine Michael Carlson would have called his attorney, Deborah Garvin, after Commander Fotheringham spoke to him. And perhaps his sister, Robin Donlan, who turned his misdemeanor into a huge mess for Chula Vista Elementary School District.
Deborah Garvin and Robin Donlan would probably each have contacted Dan Shinoff of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, with whom they worked in the earlier case involving Carlson.
And that's where the chain of likely events gets murky for me. What happened next???? I'm simply unable to conjure an explanation for what could have happened.
The minute order I received from Judge Hayes says that discovery is stayed.
But actually it's a lot more complicated. Hayes also finally made a decision about two of the three March 9, 2012 motions. After almost three months of silence, she finally denied my motion to set aside the summary adjudication, even though I was able to provide documentary evidence proving that the decision was deeply flawed.
For the past two months and three weeks she pretended that discovery was open--even gave us a discovery cut-off date--but obviously it was never really open, since the summary adjudication was never set aside. I suspected that I would be shut down the minute I started discovery, so I gave myself a long vacation (including a month in Washington DC) and waited as long as possible to start discovery.
Judge Hayes is still delaying (until August 27, 2012) her decision on Stutz' motion to strike my answer. There is absolutely no case law to support such a decision in a case with a history like this one. San Diego County Office of Education has also refused to allow discovery in this case. It even hired Stutz law firm to make sure Diane Crosier didn't have to take a deposition or produce documents. I recently filed a public records request to at least get the records.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
A public entity abuses courts to advance a personal agenda
The EEOC under George W. Bush hasn't done much for people whose civil rights have been violated, so it had to find something to do, right? Here's what it did.
Judge orders EEOC to pay $1 million to Pasadena law firm
Click HERE to see original article in San Diego Union Tribune.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
5:40 a.m. January 25, 2006
LOS ANGELES – The U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission must pay more than $1 million to a Pasadena law firm that it sued unsuccessfully last year for sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination, a federal judge has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Dickran Tevrizian, in a ruling released Monday, found that the EEOC filed a "frivolous" lawsuit against Robert L. Reeves & Associates, which practices immigration law.
Reeves maintained that the EEOC should have known that the harassment and discrimination allegations were part of a scheme to destroy his firm by two of his former law associates, according to a statement from the law firm Ballard, Rosenberg, Golper & Savitt, which represented Reeves.
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge in 2001 ordered the associates to pay Reeves $200,000 for interfering with his business and misappropriating trade secrets, among other things, the firm said.
Tevrizian found that "either the EEOC knew it was being used as a primary weapon in (the former associates') campaign to destroy (Reeves' firm), or it maintained a studied and inexcusable ignorance of this fact."
A telephone message left at the EEOC's Los Angeles field office before business hours Wednesday was not immediately returned.
Judge orders EEOC to pay $1 million to Pasadena law firm
Click HERE to see original article in San Diego Union Tribune.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
5:40 a.m. January 25, 2006
LOS ANGELES – The U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission must pay more than $1 million to a Pasadena law firm that it sued unsuccessfully last year for sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination, a federal judge has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Dickran Tevrizian, in a ruling released Monday, found that the EEOC filed a "frivolous" lawsuit against Robert L. Reeves & Associates, which practices immigration law.
Reeves maintained that the EEOC should have known that the harassment and discrimination allegations were part of a scheme to destroy his firm by two of his former law associates, according to a statement from the law firm Ballard, Rosenberg, Golper & Savitt, which represented Reeves.
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge in 2001 ordered the associates to pay Reeves $200,000 for interfering with his business and misappropriating trade secrets, among other things, the firm said.
Tevrizian found that "either the EEOC knew it was being used as a primary weapon in (the former associates') campaign to destroy (Reeves' firm), or it maintained a studied and inexcusable ignorance of this fact."
A telephone message left at the EEOC's Los Angeles field office before business hours Wednesday was not immediately returned.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)