Results: Partnership & Joint Venture Disputes
This list is a list of exemplar cases the firm has handled and is not a list of all cases the firm has handled.
Venture Communications v. Falcon Communications
In 1992, Mr. Klein represented a limited partner in a cable franchise, alleging a variety of causes of action, including breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. Mr. Klein prevailed at trial and, after a court awarded judgment in favor of Mr. Klein's client, Mr. Klein's client received $26 million by way of settlement.
ReadyLink HealthCare v. Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
The defendant law firm charged its client almost $5 million in legal fees while handling four very sophisticated trade secrets and business cases. None of the four cases went well for the client, despite paying millions of dollars of attorneys' fees. The client hired Klein & Wilson to handle the malpractice case against their former counsel, one of the largest law firms in the United States. After a two month long jury trial, the jury awarded Klein & Wilson's client every penny it requested on its breach of contract and malpractice claims and awarded the defendant law firm nothing on its cross-claims. The case drew significant attention from the California legal community, and the Los Angeles Daily Journal ran a front-page story about this case. Lewis Brisbois Ordered to Pay $6 Million for Overbilling, Mishandling Four Cases .
Affinitec v. Siemens
In May 1999, Klein & Wilson won a verdict of approximately $5 million on behalf of one of its software clients against Siemens Business Communications, Inc., one of the largest companies in the world. Affinitec prevailed on all of its breach of contract claims and recovered 99 percent (99%) of all the damages it requested from the jury. Siemens filed a cross-complaint against Klein & Wilson's client, but recovered nothing.
STM Wireless, Inc. v. AmeriData, a Subsidiary of General Electric
Klein & Wilson represented a public company in a complicated breach of contract action against a much larger corporation. Two weeks before trial, Klein & Wilson shared its mock trial results with the opposing side, and the parties reached a settlement worth more than $2 million.
Project FasTags, Inc. v. Fascenelli
Klein & Wilson represented one of two partners in the breakup of a lucrative partnership. In addition to various breach of fiduciary duty claims, Klein & Wilson represented the client in claims of copyright and trademark violation. Klein & Wilson was able to achieve a settlement resulting in a payment to its client of just over $1 million. In addition, the client retained control of the business.
Youssefzadeh v. 740 South Broadway
Klein & Wilson represented an elderly partner who was cheated by his other partners, some of whom are family members. Klein & Wilson only stepped into the case after the client lost faith in the attorney handling the matter. In a bitterly fought arbitration, Klein & Wilson received a recovery for their client in the amount of $533,505 plus attorneys' fees.
Ambassador Hotel Co., Ltd. v. Wei-Chuan Investments
Klein & Wilson was retained only after the client suffered a judgment approaching $70 million. Following reversal of the trial court's ruling, Klein & Wilson was able to have the judgment reduced by tens of millions of dollars.
Doe v. Roe Corporation (Case Confidential)
Klein & Wilson filed an action arising out of partnership dispute. Klein & Wilson's client and defendants worked together for almost two years on a business. While they did not have a written agreement, Klein & Wilson argued the parties' conduct showed they were acting as joint venture partners. Right before the parties were about to sign their partnership agreement, defendants ousted Klein & Wilson's client and formed the partnership without him. Klein & Wilson defeated defendants': (a) motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction; (b) demurrer; (c) motion to apply law of another state; (d) motion for summary judgment; and (e) motion for judgment on the pleadings. After four days of trial, the case settled with defendants agreeing to pay Klein & Wilson's client $825,000.
Doe v. Roe Corporation (Case Confidential)
Mr. Wilson represented Roe Corporation, who was sued by an individual claiming Roe Corporation entered into a written agreement providing the individual a 30 percent interest in the company as well as guaranteeing employment for five years at $100,000 per year. Plaintiff's settlement demand was $5 million. Roe Corporation hired Mr. Wilson just two weeks before the case was set for trial. Mr. Wilson persuaded the trial court to continue the trial. Mr. Wilson then took plaintiff's deposition by videotape, during which Mr. Wilson impeached plaintiff many times. Subsequently, Mr. Wilson persuaded plaintiff to attend a mediation. At the mediation, Mr. Wilson used a multimedia presentation showing how badly plaintiff had been impeached. The case settled at mediation for $60,000.
Doe Corporation v. Roe Law Firm (Case Confidential)
Klein & Wilson brought a legal malpractice action against one of the largest and most prominent law firms in California for its mishandling of a "bet-the-company" trade secrets case and its failure to recognize serious conflicts of interest. At the time, Klein & Wilson accepted the case, the law firm was demanding approximately $500,00 from the client. Klein & Wilson settled the case on the eve of trial for $725,000 with the law firm agreeing to write-off its entire bill of almost $500,000.
Does v. Roe LLC (Case Confidential)
After obtaining an arbitration award of $825,000 for Klein & Wilson's client, the defendant tried to escape payment by creating new business entities. Klein & Wilson filed an action for fraudulent conveyance and related claims, causing the defendant to settle for a confidential amount.
Does v. Roes
Klein & Wilson represented Pakistani clients who alleged they formed a joint venture with a German corporation to bring mobile banking to Pakistan. This case had jurisdictional and choice of law issues; nevertheless, Klein & Wilson was successful in keeping the case venued in the United States. After prevailing on a substantive motion and showing the defendants the case had huge exposure, the parties resolved their differences. This was the first time in Klein & Wilson's history where it agreed not to reveal the names of the parties or how the case was resolved - the result was substantial.
Gutierrez v. Gutierrez
Klein & Wilson represented defendant Ruben Gutierrez in an action filed by Ruben's brother Ignacio. Ignacio was represented by Downey Brand, Sacramento's largest law firm. Ruben and Ignacio had a successful ice cream manufacturing business. In order to meet customers' demands, Ruben and Ignacio decided to purchase a building in which to conduct their manufacturing operation. The bank required a partnership agreement before it would lend money to purchase the building. Accordingly, the brothers signed a partnership agreement containing a 10 year covenant not to compete which was triggered if one of the brothers voluntarily withdrew from the partnership. Approximately two weeks after the brothers signed the partnership agreement, they decided to terminate their partnership over differences which had been festering for years. The brothers then signed a dissolution agreement which did not contain a covenant not to compete but did contain an integration clause stating the dissolution agreement contained all the terms of the brothers' final agreement. Ignacio paid Ruben $1 million for the business. After Ruben started a new business which threatened Ignacio's success, Ignacio sued Ruben for damages and an injunction, alleging that Ruben withdrew from the partnership and was therefore bound by the covenant not to compete. Klein & Wilson filed several motions to end the lawsuit on the grounds the dissolution agreement was integrated and the parol evidence rule barred a jury from considering the covenant not to compete in the partnership agreement. The trial court denied the motions and the case proceeded to trial. The jury awarded Ignacio significant damages, and the trial court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting Ruben from manufacturing and selling ice cream in California. Klein & Wilson appealed the judgment, and the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed. The Court of Appeal agreed with Klein & Wilson's analysis of the parol evidence rule and ordered the trial court to enter judgment for Ruben and vacate the injunction.
LDM v. Unisys Corporation
In 1986, Mr. Klein negotiated a settlement for his client with Unisys Corporation. At the time, this was the largest settlement ever paid by Unisys Corporation in a non-securities case. The settlement amount is confidential.