Archive - Complex Litigation

Lee Smart attorneys have extensive experience in the Areas of Practice shown to the right. Click on one to learn more about our expertise and our attorneys in that practice.

September 25, 2017

Summary Judgement in Deed of Trust Dispute

Marc Rosenberg won summary judgment dismissal in Arnot v. Trustee in Oregon federal court. A successor trustee on a deed of trust foreclosed on a debtor’s property. Later, the debtor’s bankruptcy trustee challenged the foreclosure. Marc argued that when the debtor had formerly declared bankruptcy, that trustee abandoned the asset when he closed the bankruptcy. The court denied and granted summary judgment in favor of Marc’s client, and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion.

Lee Smart attorneys have extensive experience in the Areas of Practice shown to the right. Click on one to learn more about our expertise and our attorneys in that practice.

Dismissal of Debt Collector Action

Marc Rosenberg won dismissal law in Calderon v. Dynamic Collectors in the federal court. Plaintiff sued a collection agency claiming violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Washington’s Collection Agency Act, and Washington’s CPA, based on collection of sums due to a Washington court for traffic infractions. The court held that amounts due to a court for traffic files are not a “debt” as defined by the FDCPA, not a “claim” as defined by the CAA, and do not occur in “trade or commerce,” as required by the CPA. The matter was dismissed with prejudice on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, where no amendment would save the claims.

Lee Smart attorneys have extensive experience in the Areas of Practice shown to the right. Click on one to learn more about our expertise and our attorneys in that practice.

April 5, 2013

Technology Company Suit

Joel E. Wright and August G. Cifelli, prevailed on appeal of an award of prejudgment interest in Borton & Sons, Inc. v. Novazone, Inc. in the Eastern District of Washington.  Their client, an out-of-state technology company, was sued in federal district court on multiple theories of recovery.  Except for breach-of-warranty claims, all claims were dismissed on summary judgment.  Following the plaintiff’s verdict at trial, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to amend judgment to include approximately $500,000 in prejudgment interest.  The court also denied plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees and costs of approximately $475,000.  Both parties cross-appealed these rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  In a unanimous ruling, the Ninth Circuit reversed the award of prejudgment interest and affirmed the denial of attorney fees and costs to plaintiff, saving Lee Smart’s client nearly $1,000,000.

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn RSS

Archives