|
|||||
 |
Highlights 2008 Ruling on the Jan Pottker, et al. v. Kenneth J. Feld, et al. motions for summary judgment Judge Rules on Key Motions in Circus Case: • On August 14, 2008, the Honorable Brook Hedge for the Superior Court for the District of Columbia Superior Court’s civil division ruled on motions that had been pending for several years, clearing a path for the almost nine-year-old case, Jan Pottker, et al. vs. Kenneth J. Feld, et al., to go to trial. The Court ruled that Jan Pottker had presented evidence leading to “undisputed facts [that] form a sufficient basis to deny judgment to the defendants on all of the counts brought by Pottker and WCI [her writing company] against the Feld defendants.” These undisputed facts are the following: (1) [Kenneth] Feld did not want Pottker to write about his family or the circus; (2) Feld wanted Pottker diverted from writing about the circus; (3) Feld contacted [Clair] George [former Deputy Director of (covert) Operations at the Central Intelligence Agency] to commission the writing of a favorable book about the circus to be used if Pottker appeared able to publish her proposed book on the circus; (4) George, with Feld’s knowledge, consent and money, hired [Robert] Eringer to carry out the twin goals to see to the production of the shadow book and to divert Pottker from writing about the circus; (5) Eringer sought out and befriended Pottker to obtain information about her writing and plans to secure her trust as to his value to her in the publishing world so that he could provide information to Feld; (6) Eringer reported his information and findings to George through memoranda and dixcussions; (7) Eringer received the money he needed to carry out plans to divert, such as securing the money from Feld entities to partner with National Press Books to co-publish the Mars family book, Crisis in Candyland, by providing PPB the money that went for Pottker’s advance and securing the right to edit the book, but all in confidence with NPB without Pottker’s knowledge; (8) Eringer entered into a written agreement with Pottker to publish Celebrity Washington, but made editorial suggestions that, under any reasonable interpretation, were designed, at best, to impede or delay the publication; and (9) Eringer had to listen to “all of Pottker’s life plans” because he was paid to do that. | Roger Simmons | August 2008 | | Stranger than Fiction: Ringling's CIA Spy Headed to Court article on Blogs.cqpolitics.com | By Jeff Stein | August 15, 2008 | A Maryland Jury Finds Fraud in the Home Mortgage Market • On July 31, a civil jury in Montgomery County, Maryland, Kimberly Thomas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Civ. No. 279370-V, rendered a verdict for $1,250,000 in damages ($250,000 compensatory and $1,000,000 punitive) against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., for defrauding a home buyer who was seeking a mortgage loan. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., made an excessive loan at a higher than promised interest rate to Ms. Kimberly Thomas. In the course of the loan approval, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., was found to have engaged in fraudulent activity by misrepresenting income and assets of Ms. Thomas in order to justify a loan that she could not afford and could not repay in order to earn a commission on the transaction. • In conducting its deliberations, the jury was provided evidence from which it could find that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., did not comply with its own consumer mortgage loan policies, its own ethical standards and requirements and abused its position with respect to commonly used banking practices governing loan standards in the consumer area. • Representing Ms. Thomas in the trial was Brian Maul of the Frederick, Maryland law firm of Gordon & Simmons, LLC. Other counsel at Gordon & Simmons who worked on the case were lead counsel, Roger C. Simmons, and Karen H. Alegi. | Brian Maul | July 2008 | | Jury vindicates a homebuyer done wrong by her lender | Baltimoresun.com | By Jay Hancock | 08/08/08 | | Attorney Brian Maul Wins Big for Sub Prime Mortgage Victim | http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com | By Brenda Craig | 08/13/08 | | BaltimoreBusinessJournal.PDF | Baltimore Business Journal | By Eli Segall | 08/13/08 | Fraud by Major Car Dealer in Montgomery County James v. Sheehy Ford of Gaithersburg, L.C., Case No. 271608-V • At the conclusion of a five-day jury trial, a Montgomery County jury awarded plaintiff $414,000 in compensatory damages for violations of Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act and Automotive Repair Facilities Act by the defendant, Sheehy Ford of Gaithersburg, L.C. Under both the Consumer Protection Act and Automotive Repair Facilities Act, the jury awarded Ms. James $7,000 in economic damages, for the value of her vehicle, and $200,000 in non-economic damages for the psychological and emotional turmoil which plaintiff experienced due to defendant’s fraud. Subsequently, the Court determined that the verdicts under the two statutes were duplicative and consolidated the two judgments into one judgment for $207,000. As reflected by the verdict, the jury determined that the defendant had committed fraud against Ms. James in relation to repairs it performed on her vehicle and that, as a result of the defendant’s fraud, Ms. James spent the next two years of her life unknowingly attempting to repair a car that could not be repaired. The Court recently awarded more than $78,000 in attorneys’ fees under the Consumer Protection Act, bringing the total judgment to more than $285,000. This case was tried before the jury by Brian Maul. | Brian Maul | May 2008 | Montgomery Bakers v. Montgomery Distributors • Roger Simmons (lead counsel) and Karen Alegi (second chair) won a judgment following a four day judge trial in Montgomery County Circuit Court in March 2008 before the Honorable Judge Dugan for shareholders, Sheldon Fischer and Ann Fischer, and their company, Montgomery Bakers, Inc., against two other shareholders of Montgomery Bakers and their separately owned company, Montgomery Distributors, Inc, for $654,000. The basis of the award was an equitable adjustment for wrongful taking of corporate assets. | Roger Simmons and Karen Alegi | 2008 | Highlights 2007 Major litigation pending in three courts successfully settled 1. Kentucky Coal Venture I, LLC v. Darrell Williams, et al, Case No. 07 CV 1339 (D. Md.); 2. In re: Alma Energy, LLC Chapter 11, Case No. 07-70370 and Adversary Proceeding Nos. 07-07025 and 07-07032 (Bankr. E.D. Ky.); and 3. THC Kentucky Coal Venture I, LLC v. Nathan Williams, Pike County Circuit Court, Case No. 07-C1-00910. • As lead counsel for Kentucky Coal Venture I and a group of related companies owned in significant part by Warren E. Halle based in Silver Spring, Maryland, Roger C. Simmons was in charge of three cases involving Mr. Halle’s companies’ investments in a series of coal mines in Kentucky and West Virginia. The cases sought the recovery of millions of dollars in investments and required the defense of counter-claim allegations asserting $100 million in damages in a bankruptcy adversary action in Kentucky. Mr. Simmons was assisted by Matthew S. Johnston, who joined the firm in early August of this year. All three of these cases were successfully settled in late November after seven months of intensive work. | Roger C. Simmons and Mathew S. Johnston | 2007 | Frederick Circuit Court Enters Verdicts of More Than $400,000 in Attorney Malpractice Cases Cronin v. Dorsey, Case No. 10-C-05-000040 Bears v. Dorsey, Case No. 10-C-05-000041 • At the conclusion of two separate trials in the Circuit Court for Frederick County, the Court entered verdicts in favor of the firm’s clients in amounts totaling more than $400,000 against the defendant, Nelson Bernard Dorsey. The plaintiffs in the two cases, Anna Cronin and Susan Bears, had each brought an attorney malpractice suit against their previous attorney related to his handling of their employment discrimination claims against their employer, the United States Postal Service. The Court found that the defendant committed malpractice, negligently allowed plaintiffs’ complaints against their employer to be dismissed, and was legally responsible for the damages plaintiffs would have recovered against their employer had the defendant not committed malpractice. These related cases were tried before two different judges by Brian Maul. | Brian M. Maul | 2007 | Court of Special Appeals reverses trial court at the request of Gordon & Simmons, LLC Hearn v. Hearn, Ct. of Spec. App., September 2006 term, Case No. 2761, Nov. 30, 2007, reported opinion • Karen Alegi, writing the briefs and doing the oral argument, recently won a favorable decision in the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland in a case involving the language used in a qualified domestic relations order (“QDRO”) that divided a spouse’s pension benefits pursuant to a divorce. The Circuit Court of Frederick County had denied the husband’s request to issue an order necessary to carry out the QDRO according to the parties’ negotiations during the divorce. In denying the husband’s motion, the Circuit Court did not permit him to offer any evidence in support of his motion. The Court of Special Appeals agreed with the firm’s argument and remanded the case, directing the Circuit Court to permit the husband to present evidence of the parties’ negotiations. In the reported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals clarified Maryland’s caselaw relating to mutual mistakes of the parties to a contract negotiation. | Karen H. Alegi | 2007 | Highlights 2006 • Karen Alegi obtained treble damages and attorney’s fees against an employer in Washington County District Court in October 2006 for attempting to withhold wages from two employees that were fired from their jobs. Following a full trial, the Court found for the employees. | Karen H. Alegi | 2006 | • Recently, Brian M. Maul obtained a highly favorable settlement for his client in a Washington County case involving the wrongful repossession of his client’s automobile by one of the country’s major automobile financiers. In addition to obtaining more than full value for the client’s losses, the settlement resulted in the dismissal of the defendant’s counterclaim and ensured that the client’s credit rating would not be negatively impacted by the wrongful repossession. | Brian M. Maul | 2006 | • The firm's longtime clients, April Oliver and Jack Smith, CNN producers who developed the Tailwind Story for CNN in 1998 and have been continuously involved in litigation since then (which they have consistently and unanimously won), were vindicated once again by a Federal District Court in California in September 2006 when the Court dismissed a libel case against CNN and certain of its employees that had been pending for more than four years and involved extensive discovery into the facts relating to the Tailwind Story and its origins. In Re Cable News Network and Time Magazine “Operation Tailwind” Litigation, Case No. C 99-20137 JF(RS), Judge Fogel, U.S. Dist., No. Dist. Calif., September 21, 2006. | Roger C. Simmons | 2006 | • During the third week of August 2006, following intense briefing, numerous pretrial motions, multiple depositions in five states, and professional mediation, attorneys Roger Simmons and Brian Maul, representing plaintiffs who had sold their small corporation to a professional venture capital firm, but had not previously received full compensation, settled a series of complex suits before Virginia state courts, the American Arbitration Association, and a Federal court. The actual settlement amount is confidential, but the Gordon & Simmons, LLC clients received full dollar value in the low to mid-seven figure range. Moreover, the firm’s attorneys kept fees and expenses within a reasonable range (less than 15% of the recovered money) to achieve a spectacularly positive result, especially in comparison to the settlements that other, similarly situated, stockholders had previously obtained by settling their cases earlier, following the advice of other, larger law firms. | Brian M. Maul | 2006 | • In April 2006, Gordon & Simmons, LLC filed suit in Atlanta, Georgia for TV news anchorman, Ken Watts, alleging age discrimination against his former employer. Mr. Watts's case was successfully settled in the fall of 2007. | Roger C. Simmons | 2006 | • Brian Maul represented a diabetic long-haul truck driver for a national trucking line who was fired for contracting the disease. After winning preliminary motions Mr. Maul successfully settled this case. | Brian M. Maul | 2006 | • Other matters of current interest involve the firm’s work as Special Counsel appointed by the Bankruptcy Court to investigate and litigate a matter involving major high tech products of national importance; representation of nationally renowned authors in professional disputes; work for publishers in connection with their dealings with authors; construction litigation; zoning litigation; and many other matters of local, regional and national interest. | Gordon & Simmons, LLC | 2006 |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
