Commercial Litigation Handled By Our San Diego Based Business Lawyers
Marks, Finch, Thornton & Baird, LLP represents a wide variety of businesses for their litigation needs, including national and local construction companies, national and local defense contractors, national and local distributors, national and local manufacturers, international insurance companies, venture capitalists, vehicle dealerships, clothing makers and retailers, book sellers, developers, and laboratories. The firm’s business attorneys have represented numerous clients in litigation through trial and appeal.
Business attorneys handle numerous types of business disputes such as:
- Breach Of Contract
- Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
- Intentional Torts
- Uniform Commercial Code Issues Of Sales And Security Interests
- Warranties
- Risk Of Loss
- Distribution And Sales Arrangements
- Partnership Disputes
- Negligence
- Fraud
- Unfair And/Or Unlawful Competition
- Trade Secrets
- Products Liability
- Intellectual Property Relating To Copyrights, Patents, Service Marks, And Trademarks
Successes of our San Diego Based Businesses Lawyers
The firm’s San Diego based attorneys have litigated these issues in a variety of state and federal courts, and through many forums of alternative dispute resolution. Representative experience includes: successful defense, through a six week jury trial, of a multimillion dollar lawsuit against an LLC and a member brought by another LLC member; successful prosecution of suppliers of non-conforming products through trial for breach of implied warranties; defense of a national distributor in litigation relating to distribution and sales arrangements; and defense judgment for client in $80,000,000 claim for intentional interference with contract.
Published Business & Commercial Litigation Decisions
Wagner Construction Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 19
The California Supreme Court agreed with the firm's argument that an arbitrator, not court, decides a statute of limitations defense, after the firm’s lawyers created a new legal argument to resurrect the client's aged claims.
Anserv Insurance Services, Inc. v. Albrecht 960 P.2d 1159 (1998)
In a dispute between an insurer and a managing general agent, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed with the firm's interpretation of the procedural rules for pleading a complaint.
Representative Business & Commercial Litigation Experience
Sprotte + Watson Architecture & Planning, Inc. v. Santee School District et al. San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2009-00083936-CU-CO-CTL
2010: The dispute involved a nine school site construction project at a local school district, valued at over $100 million. After terminating the architect for convenience, the school district was sued for payment owed, lost profits, and bad faith termination. The architect also sued the former assistant superintendent personally for intentional interference with its contract. The matter culminated in a three and a half week jury trial in which the firm represented the local school district and was successful in excluding the claims for lost profits and bad faith termination, and the allegations against the individual district employee, totaling approximately $1.3 million. The firm also secured a jury verdict for damages against the negligent architect, and partially defended the claims for outstanding payments.
Counsel: Nowell A. Lantz and Daniel P. Scholz
Dhando Investments, Inc. v. Staley, Inc. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. KC058493
2010: The firm's client was an Arkansas corporation that was sued in Los Angeles for various business torts that allegedly occurred in Arkansas. The firm successfully obtained a dismissal of the lawsuit by establishing that its client was not subject to California's jurisdiction because of its limited contacts to California and the foreign nature of the plaintiff's claims. The lawsuit was dismissed at little cost and inconvenience to the firm's client. The litigation has not been pursued by the plaintiff in a different jurisdiction.
Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird and Christopher R. Sillari
John Zayak v. John T. Hardisty Construction, Inc. et al. San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIC852090
2007: The firm represented a plaintiff that sued to collect $90,000.00 owed by defendants under a promissory note. Defendants asserted cross-claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and conversion. On the eighth day of a ten day jury trial, defendants agreed to dismiss their claims, and pay plaintiff $140,000 plus attorneys’ fees and costs in settlement of the action. After the court awarded fees and costs, the client’s total recovery was $429,223.11.
Counsel: Bernard F. King III
Global Conveyance, Inc. et al. v. Roel Construction Co., Inc. et al. San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIC831566
2006: Eight day bench trial on complaint against client seeking $90 million, plus punitive damages, resulting in complete defense judgment in favor of firm's contractor client. Plaintiff’s last pre-trial offer was to accept payment of $15 million.
Counsel: Louis J. Blum
First Class Water and Shower v. B. L. Murphy, dba B. L. Murphy & Sons San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIC840592
2006: Two week jury trial regarding breach of contract and conversion resulting in 10-2 verdict in favor of firm's client on plaintiff's complaint and 12-0 verdict in favor of firm's client on its cross-complaint.
Counsel: David W. Smiley
Los Angeles Testing Engineers, Inc. v. DMJM International Orange County Superior Court Case No. 03CC1102/ JAMS Arbitration No. 1200035911
2005: Three day arbitration regarding contract interpretation resulting in judgment in favor of firm's professional services client on complaint for $481,179.00.
Counsel: Robert J. Marks
