Litigation Success Stories

Antitrust

Virtual Maintenance, Inc. v Prime Computer

This case involved a groundbreaking series of antitrust decisions commencing with a greater than $30 million jury verdict at trial in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan in 1991. Mr. Young was lead counsel for Plaintiff. The case then proceeded to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals where the panel reversed the case and then proceeded to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the High Court reversed the 6th Circuit. However, the 6th Circuit then sent the case back to the U.S. District Court for a new trial on separate grounds, which, in turn, was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case was settled on the eve of the nine justices taking up the second petition for certiorari. The case set groundbreaking precedent as it relates to the tying of high technology products and the definition of relevant product markets. Prime was represented by Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn; Hale & Dorr; Charles Fried, Solicitor General of the United States in the Reagan Administration and of the Harvard Law School.

Virtual Maintenance, Inc. v. Prime Computer, Inc., 11 F.3d 660, 1993-2 Trade Cases P 70,446 (6th Cir.(Mich.), Dec 15, 1993);Virtual Maintenance, Inc. v. Prime Computer, Inc., 995 F.2d 1324, 1993-2 Trade Cases P 70,400 (6th Cir.(Mich.), Jun 04, 1993);Virtual Maintenance, Inc. v. Prime Computer, Inc., 957 F.2d 1318, 1992-1 trade Cases P 69,730 (6th Cir.(Mich.), Feb 27, 1992); andVirtual Maintenance, Inc. v. Prime Computer, Inc., 735 F.Supp. 231, 1990-1 Trade Cases P 69,050 (E.D. Mich., Apr 20, 1990).

 

CTC Communications Corp. v Bell Atlantic Corporation (now Verizon) [Maine]

This case involved antitrust allegations on behalf of CTC, a reseller of telecommunication products. The firm represented Plaintiff CTC Communications, a publicly owned trade facilities-based telecommunications carrier in the Eastern United States.

This case involved varying battles in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. District Court in Portland, Maine. Ultimately, the case was tried in the U.S. District Court in Maine and settled in the third week of trial. Bell Atlantic was represented by Winston & Strawn of Chicago.

CTC Communications Corp. v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 77 F.Supp.2d 124, 1991-1 Trade Cases P 72,421 (D.Me., Jan 12, 1999) and CTC Communications Corp. v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 14 F.Supp.2d 133 (D.Me., Jul 31, 1998).

Automotive

With an office in the heart of the automotive alley, Young, Garcia & Quadrozzi regularly provides litigation support and pre-litigation counseling and advice to sophisticated automotive suppliers both in our region, and those around the world doing business in the automotive sphere. Often these disputes begin with pre-litigation demands to the automotive companies directly or to a tier two or three supplier. Those that cannot be resolved pre-litigation often proceed through extraordinary relief such as a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. The Firm has decades of experience in this unique area and has an outstanding record of success for its clients seeking relief.

 

COUPLED PRODUCTS V. NAVISTAR

Our client, Coupled Products, brought a breach of contract claim against automotive manufacturer Navistar. Navistar counter sued. We were retained to represent Coupled at trial against two prominent national law firms. After a two-and-a-half-week trial, the jury awarded Coupled all of the damages Coupled sought – to the penny – and rejected Navistar’s counterclaims. We then pursued attorney fees, costs and interests for our client, and after numerous days of evidentiary hearing, the court entered a final judgment including attorney fees, costs and interest. The case settled before the appeal.

 

 MULTIMATIC V. FAURECIA

Faurecia, a French automotive supplier, asked Multimatic, a Canadian automotive supplier, to supply parts to Faurecia for eventual use on a Chrysler line of vehicles. Multimatic designed a part and submitted that design to Faurecia after Faurecia signed a confidentiality agreement with Multimatic, promising to limit disclosure on this design. Nevertheless, Faurecia disclosed the design to one of Multimatic’s competitors. This competitor eventually replaced Multimatic. Multimatic brought a breach of contract lawsuit against Faurecia in Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The Firm represented Multimatic. After one week of trial, the jury awarded the full amount of damages sought by Multimatic, $10 million, and asked the Court whether it could impose additional damages.

 

ALGONQUIN AUTOMOTIVE V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

The Firm successfully represented Algonquin, a Tier-1 supplier, against Ford based on Ford’s breach of a supply agreement whereby Algonquin created, developed and manufactured a hard tonneau cover for Ford’s special Harley Davidson edition of its well-known F-150 vehicle. Following arbitration hearings spanning more than a year, The Firm secured a substantial seven-figure award.

Complex Contract

Coupled Products v Navistar

Our client, Coupled Products, sued for about $1,000,000 and attorney fees when Navistar failed to fully pay for parts that Coupled had shipped. Navistar claimed that the parts had been shipped late and counter-sued for about $700,000. After a one week trial in Oakland County Circuit Court, a jury deliberated for only one hour before awarding Coupled its claimed damages — to the penny — and awarded $0 to Navistar. Coupled is currently seeking attorney fees from Navistar.

 

Provider Creditors Committee v United American Healthcare Corporation

The firm sought, and was granted, an interlocutory appeal of a venue issue. The Court of Appeals agreed with our clients’ position and ordered the case transferred to a different court. The opinion was published as 275 Mich App 90; 738 NW2d 770 (2007).

 

Ferris v Nissho Iwai American Corporation (Japan), et. al.

This case involved a Japanese trading company who defaulted on monies due upon purchasing a leasing company. The firm represented Plaintiff Ferris. We obtained an $8+ Million Judgment (including over $1 Million in attorneys fees). Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn represented Defendants.

 

Michigan Repacking & Produce Company v Dade Service Corporation, et. al.

This case involved massive refrigeration failures at a huge repacking plant in Detroit, Michigan. The firm represented Plaintiff Michigan Repacking, the largest wholesaler of fruit and vegetables in Michigan. The case was ultimately settled on the eve of trial in the Wayne County Circuit Court for nearly $10,000,000 against the three system suppliers.

 

Gleeson v Borda, et. al.

This case involved allegations of fraudulent misrepresentations to induce Plaintiff to join a newly formed law firm. The firm represented Defendant Borda, a principal of the newly formed law firm. Three of the original four Counts of the Complaint were adjudicated and dismissed through Summary Disposition Motions leaving one Count to adjudicate at trial. Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Rae Lee Chabot granted Defendants’ Motion for Dismissal at the end of Plaintiff’s proofs on this remaining Count.

 

Kolene Corporation v Ciarlone, et al.

This case involved allegations of conspiracy and expropriation of trade secrets against several Defendants. The firm represented Plaintiff Kolene, the world’s largest manufacturer of molten salt cleaning systems for industrial processes ranging from aerospace to automobile. The Oakland County jury awarded Kolene a $1.3 million verdict and the Judge issued a Preliminary Injunction against Defendants, a competitor and a former Vice President.

 

Fourteen Cities v Southern Oakland County Resource Recovery Authority

This case involved an acrimonious dispute between the largest composting operation in North America, which serves 14 surrounding communities and its host city. Mr. Young was appointed as a Special Master to oversee operations and advise the Court on matters. In a rare public comment, Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Fred M. Mester announced that “Not only is Rodger D. Young an outstanding lawyer, but he also proved to be a facilitator of the highest calling in resolving the seemingly un-resolvable.”

Manufacturer Rep

Adams Dolik & Associates v Willis Manufacturing

An arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association awarded Adams Dolik & Associates $500,000 as compensation for unpaid commissions owed to the manufacturer’s representative for sales made on behalf of Willis Manufacturing Inc., an automotive supplier based in Delaware. According to the ruling, Willis Manufacturing failed to pay Adams Dolik & Associates commissions on multiple sales initiated by Dolik on behalf of Willis, dating back to June 2003.

Addressed during the arbitration were the multiple-tiered commission rates in the original contract and commissions paid on derivative, or successor, parts — those modified based on original parts specifically covered under the contract. Dolik was also awarded future commissions on sales initiated under the agreement as a result of the arbitrator’s ruling.

 

Kingsley Associates, Inc. v Moll PlastiCrafters, Inc.

This case involved a manufacturer representative dispute over the right of commissions on parts that a representative sells for the manufacturer to the automotive industry. The firm represented the Plaintiff Kingsley. The federal jury awarded Kingsley a verdict of nearly $2 million in commissions.

The District Judge granted a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and alternately a new trial. The verdict was reinstated by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Kingsley Associates, Inc. v. Moll PlastiCrafters, Inc., 65 F.3d 498, 1995 Fed. App. 0279P (6th Cir.(Mich.), Sep 15, 1995).

 

Miltimore Sales, Inc. v International Rectifier, Inc.

This case involved a manufacturer’s representative’s claims for lost commissions. The firm represented Plaintiff Miltimore and obtained virtually everything that Miltimore had demanded resulting in a verdict, which with interest and costs, will total nearly $3 million. This seven-week jury trial was in the U.S. District Court in Detroit, Michigan. Defendant was represented by Foley & Lardner.

Municipal

IN RE CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN

In the largest municipal bankruptcy filing in U.S. history, Young, Garcia & Quadrozzi represented Oakland County in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Bankruptcy Division. As one of the largest customers of the Detroit Water & Sewer Department (DWSD), Oakland County objected to the Plan of Adjustment (POA) proposed by the City of Detroit which sought to fund the POA by using revenues from DWSD that were critically needed for the operations and capital improvements for the provision of water and sewer services to nearly 40% of the residents of the State of Michigan. The Firm’s opening statement highlighted the crises that taking much needed resources away from DWSD would create. In the midst of trial, Oakland County, DWSD and the Counties of Wayne, Macomb and Oakland achieved a global settlement which resulted in the formation of a regional water authority.

 

BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP

In a highly publicized class action lawsuit, an Oakland County Judge entered a judgment against Bloomfield Township in the amount of $9.6 million in damages and pre-judgment interest, plus post-judgment interest, costs, and attorney fees for allegedly overcharging residents through water and sewer rates. Facing this massive judgment, Bloomfield Township immediately retained the Firm to handle the appeal. After conducting thorough interviews with Bloomfield Township employees and reviewing the extensive trial record, the Firm filed its brief on appeal, arguing that the trial court erred by permitting the class to cherry-pick certain cost components of Bloomfield Township’s overall water and sewer rates while ignoring all others, thereby rendering it impossible to determine whether the rates, cumulatively, were actually too high. Indeed, when taking all variables into account, the trial court recorded demonstrated that Bloomfield Township had been undercharging—not overcharging—water and sewer customers. The class also filed its own cross-appeal, arguing that not only were Bloomfield Township’s water and sewer rates too high, but that they were an unconstitutional tax, in violation of the Headlee Amendment. At oral argument, the Court of Appeals noted that the Firm “beautifully briefed” its arguments, and in the following unanimous, published decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and ordered the entry of a judgment of no cause of action in favor of Bloomfield Township on all counts. The class filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, and the Firm filed its brief vigorously opposing leave. Just as the Firm prevailed in the Court of Appeals, it prevailed again in the Supreme Court. The Firm also recovered Bloomfield Township’s appellate costs and will soon obtain an order for the Township’s trial costs as well.

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. CITY OF DETROIT, ET AL.

In this case brought under the Clean Water Act in the 1970’s, the Firm was brought in by Oakland County and the Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner in the mid-2000’s to help reach a resolution of this decades old case involving the provision of safe drinking water to residents of Macomb, Oakland and Wayne Counties. Languishing for many years, the Firm was able to move the matter to resolution working closely with all parties to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act, and other state and federal guidelines, and to ensure the provision of safe and efficient water and sewer services to millions of residents of the State of Michigan.

Business Shareholder Disputes

Young, Garcia & Quadrozzi is renowned for its success representing entrepreneurs and business owners in “bet-the-company” complex litigation, particularly in high-stakes litigation between shareholders and between businesses. The Firm has represented a broad range of businesses and business owners from publicly-traded companies in matters triggering SEC compliance issues, to representation of minority shareholders in closely-held companies where shareholder oppression and breach of fiduciary duties can be rampant. In either circumstance, the Firm draws upon decades of experience in both distilling the core, often complex, factual and contractual issues into a compelling jury narrative and working with sophisticated economic and damages experts to ensure that the client receives every economic benefit that he/she is entitled to receive.

 

PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY V. FORTUNE 100 MANUFACTURER

The Firm represented the plaintiff company in complex contract dispute concerning defendant’s termination of a merger agreement between these publicly traded entities. After partial 7-week federal jury trial, secured $20 million settlement in plaintiff’s favor. This was the largest reported settlement that year in the State of Michigan.

 

MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS V. REAL ESTATE CONGLOMERATE

The Firm represented minority shareholders in a conglomerate of 100+ real estate construction and development firms. These shareholders were first “locked-out” of participation in the businesses, then subjected to further oppression through the taking (or alleged “purchase”) of their ownership interests at artificially deflated values. After proceedings in State and Federal courts, as well as multi-week arbitration hearings, the Firm secured a substantial 8-figure damages award, in addition to a seven-figure award of attorney’s fees and costs. Thereafter, the Firm successfully argued for affirmation of the award before the Michigan Court of Appeals.

 

MINORITY SHAREHOLDER V. MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS AND MANUFACTURING CO.

The Firm represented a minority shareholder who, for 40 years, owned and built a successful manufacturing company with his two partners. The Firm provided pre-litigation advice and guidance to the shareholder in navigating a complex operating agreement, with provisions governing a “buy-out” of his shares. When those negotiations proved unsuccessful, The Firm successfully represented the shareholder in claims for oppression and breach of contract in state court. The matter settled on confidential terms favorable to the shareholder.

 

FERRIS V. NISSHO IWAI AMERICAN CORPORATION (JAPAN), ET AL.

This case involved a Japanese trading company who defaulted on monies due upon purchasing a leasing company. The Firm represented Plaintiff Ferris. After week-long jury trial, the Firm obtained an $8+ Million Judgment (including over $1 Million in attorney’s fees). Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn represented Defendants.

 

DETROIT CENTER TOOL, INC. V. CLASSIC DESIGN, INC.

This case involved a dispute over engineering and design work that Classic Design was hired to perform for Detroit Center Tool on robotic assembly lines in numerous automotive plants in North America. The Firm represented Plaintiff Detroit Center Tool. The Oakland County jury awarded the Firm’s client, Detroit Center Tool, a verdict of $9 million, one of the largest awards ever in Oakland County Circuit Court.

 

PRINTING COMPANY V. FORTUNE 200 INTERNATIONAL MANUFACTURER

Successfully represented local printing company in breach of contract case against a Fortune 200 international manufacturer. After The Firm presented opening argument and their first witness, the case settled after the first day of trial.

Patent/Trade Secret

For more than two decades, the Firm has been a go-to resource for high stakes patent infringement cases throughout the United States. The combination of superior trial presentation, a unique ability to educate and communicate to jurors and strong relationships with technical experts has yielded an outstanding record for our clients.

ARTHREX, INC. V. SMITH & NEPHEW

The Firm represented the global leader in arthroscopic surgery, Arthrex Inc., in a patent infringement case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. After a fast-tracked 18 months of intense discovery, and a week-long trial, the jury found the patents at issue valid and the Defendants to have willfully infringed every claim of the patents at issue.

 

TELEFLEX, INC. V. FICOSA NORTH AMERICAN CORP.

The Firm represented Plaintiff Teleflex, a publicly traded multinational client in its claim of patent infringement. The Federal jury awarded Teleflex a large monetary verdict and the Judge issued a Permanent Injunction against Defendant, a Spanish company that had been competing with Teleflex. The infringed technology involved the worldwide market for flexible transmission cables. This four-week jury trial in U.S. District Court in Detroit, Michigan pitted the Firm against the law firm of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue.

 

SMITH & NEPHEW V. ARTHREX

This case was tried twice in the United States District Court in Portland, Oregon. The Firm represented the Defendant, Arthrex. In the first trial, the jury was hung 7-1 in favor of the Defendant. In the second trial, Smith & Nephew obtained a verdict that was reversed on a successful appeal to the Federal Circuit. Following additional appeals at the PTO and the Federal Circuit, a favorable settlement was achieved.

 

IMPCO V. GFI

IMPCO sued GFI (represented by the Firm), a manufacturer of alternative fuel systems, for patent infringement. Although IMPCO, a leading alternative fuel systems manufacturer headquartered in California, had a strong patent infringement case against GFI, GFI was able to raise substantial questions as to the validity of IMPCO’s patent. As a result, IMPCO decided to settle the case by dismissing its lawsuit against GFI.

Professional Liability

Carbtex Marketing Universal, Inc. v. Major Law Firm

Young & Associates successfully defended a major law firm on a claim of legal malpractice arising from a failed merger transaction. Plaintiffs sought $15 million and Young & Associates obtained a no cause on plaintiffs’ claims and won a $24,000 verdict on a counterclaim.

 

MCA v Grant Thornton et. al.

Young & Associates successfully defended an accounting firm against allegations of accountant malpractice in a series of cases stemming from the audit of MCA Financial Corporation, a mortgage banker. Bodman, Longley represented MCA.

The basis of the charges was that the accounting firm had failed to spot MCA’s fraud. The accounting firm responded that MCA’s fraud had been calculated to deceive the accounting firm and, consequently, there could not be and was not any negligence on the part of the accounting firm. Young & Associates successfully defended the accounting firm in state and federal court on six separate occasions. The success at the trial court level was duplicated by requested appellate victories.

 

Chase Bank v Grant Thornton, et. al.

Young & Associates successfully defended an accounting firm against allegations of fraud by Chase Bank and Paine Webber. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft of New York represented Paine Webber, and Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn represented Chase Bank.

Young & Associates succeeded in having the complaints of both Chase and Paine Webber dismissed. Chase Bank appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals and Supreme Court and Young & Associates prevailed in both venues. Consequently, all charges in these multi-million dollar lawsuits against the accounting firm were dismissed.

 

Colton v Major Accounting Firm

A disgruntled real estate investor sued a major accounting firm for malpractice as it related to three review engagements. The plaintiff claimed $12 million as a result of the ultimate collapse of a real estate company in which he held a major interest. After a five-week trial, the jury entered a no cause of action against the plaintiff.

Real Estate

Grubb & Ellis v Griswold Properties

An Oakland County, Michigan jury awarded Grubb & Ellis $888,778 after finding landlord Griswold Properties L.L.C. responsible for the payment of a commission on a 2002 lease to H&R Block in downtown Detroit.

Griswold Properties had argued that it did not owe the commission. A commission contract was finalized between Griswold Properties and Grubb & Ellis detailing how commission would be paid if H&R Block signed a lease for space in the Dime Building. When the person representing the tax firm left the company, H&R Block began negotiating directly with Griswold Properties. No commission was paid to Grubb & Ellis.

The case is significant because it shows that commercial brokers can document work on deals even when final agreements are not reached for significant periods. The mere separation in time between a broker performing services and the ultimate lease negotiated directly by a landlord is not necessarily enough to avoid liability.

Technology

Ford v TSC

Ford filed a lawsuit against TSC in Wayne County Circuit Court, claiming that the operational speeds in a complex software package were deficient. Young & Associates represented TSC, a public company. Ford asked for over $30 million in damages from TSC initially, and demanded a verdict of $14 million at trial. The case was mediated for $6 million against TSC. After a 10-day trial, a jury awarded $3.1 million to Ford but the case was settled for substantially less prior to appeal.

 

Repunetics, Inc. v Virtual Technology, Inc.

This case involved a contract dispute over the design and manufacture of sophisticated electronic disc-drive cabinets for Virtual. The firm represented the Defendant Virtual. The Ann Arbor jury awarded Plaintiff nothing on its multimillion-dollar claim against Virtual and awarded Virtual nearly $200,000 on its counterclaim. This case generated a great deal of interest in the high-tech market.

 

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v Computer Methods Corporation [Tennessee]

This case involved the joint venture development of high tech tire tag technology between the parties. The firm represented Defendant Computer Methods Corporation. The trial was in the U.S. District Court in Nashville, TN. Bridgestone/Firestone, represented by Jones Day Reavis & Pogue, sued for $23.0 Million and was awarded nothing by the jury in its verdict. The jury granted Computer Methods Corporation over $600,000 of a $700,000 Counterclaim against Bridgestone.

 

Comm-Tract Corporation v Northern Telecom, Inc. [Massachusetts]

This case involved a Boston based telecommunications maintenance company that specialized in maintaining high technology telecommunication systems manufactured by Nortel and others. The firm represented Plaintiff Comm-Tract. This case lingered in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston for nearly four and a half years before it finally went to trial.

This case was settled in the third week of the trial and, in the words of John Polmonari, President of Comm-Tract, “I never could have asked for anything more from my law firm.” Hale & Dorr represented Northern Telecom. Comm-Tract Corp. v. Northern Telecom, Inc., 168 F.R.D. 4, 1996-2 Trade Cases P 71,525, 35 Fed.R.Serv.3d 811.

Accounting

Young, Garcia & Quadrozzi provides all manner of litigation and pre-litigation support for sophisticated accounting, consulting and professional service providers. Frequently, these disputes begin with pre-litigation demand letters to the accountants directly, or with subpoenas issued to the accounting firm in litigation involving a current or former accounting client. For decades, the Firm has handled these types of pre-litigation threats, ensuring that both the Firm’s and the accounting client’s interests are protected and acting as liaison with malpractice insurance carriers. While many of these early disputes can be neutralized with firm, aggressive early intervention, when malpractice claims ensue, the Firm has a stellar record zealously advocating these issues and, in the process, securing some of the key precedents in this field of law.

 

TRUSTEE V. UHY

Defended accounting firm from claims of malpractice and allegations of breach of fiduciary duties owed pursuant to a trust instrument. After first capturing the assets of the trust via a successful motion for preliminary injunction, the Firm demonstrated clearly through discovery that plaintiff and its counsel failed to conduct adequate investigation into the claims alleged and that the entire suit was frivolous under Michigan statute and court rules. Accordingly, the Court dismissed all claims against the accountants and found the suit against them frivolous as a matter of law, awarding the accountants their attorney’s fees and costs incurred to defend against the claims. Case settled immediately thereafter on terms favorable to the accountants.

 

RILEY V. AMERITECH, ET AL.

Successfully defended consulting and accounting firm against $180 million malpractice claim brought by Ameritech telecommunications company. Ameritech alleged that it relied on attest services and reports prepared by the accounting firm when it consummated the purchase of a technology company represented by the accountants. After significant motion practice, the Court dismissed the majority of claims asserted by Ameritech, with the Firm securing a precedent-setting summary judgment opinion on the scope of an accountant’s liability to non- clients who allege reliance upon an accountant’s attest services. Riley v. Ameritech Corp., 147 F.Supp.2d 762 (E.D.Mich.2001).

 

MILLER PARTNERSHIP V. FRC

Partnership brought suit against accounting firm alleging breach of fiduciary duties and malpractice in connection with a failed investment by the partnership. After, first, securing dismissal of the majority of claims through motion practice, the Firm proceeded to trial on remaining claims. Following eight-day trial, the jury deliberated for a mere 45 minutes, concluding that there was no cause of action against the accountants. Thereafter, the Firm successfully recovered mediation sanctions against the Partnership based on its pursuit of these meritless claims.

 

CHASE BANK V. GRANT THONRTON, ET AL.

The Firm successfully defended an accounting firm against allegations of fraud by Chase Bank and Paine Webber. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft of New York represented Paine Webber, and Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn represented Chase Bank. The Firm succeeded in having the complaints of both Chase and Paine Webber dismissed. Chase Bank appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals and Supreme Court and the Firm prevailed in both venues. Consequently, all charges in these multi-million-dollar lawsuits against the accounting firm were dismissed.

 

MCA V. GRANT THORNTON ET AL.

The Firm successfully defended an accounting firm against allegations of accountant malpractice in a series of cases stemming from the audit of MCA Financial Corporation, a mortgage banker. Bodman, Longley represented MCA. The basis of the charges was that the accounting firm had failed to spot MCA’s fraud. The accounting firm responded that MCA’s fraud had been calculated to deceive the accounting firm and, consequently, there could not be and was not any negligence on the part of the accounting firm. The Firm successfully defended the accounting firm in state and federal court on six separate occasions. The success at the trial court level was duplicated by requested appellate victories.

 

COLTON V. MAJOR ACCOUNTING FIRM

A disgruntled real estate investor sued a major accounting firm for malpractice as it related to three review engagements. The plaintiff claimed $12 million as a result of the ultimate collapse of a real estate company in which he held a major interest. After a five-week trial, the jury entered a no cause of action against the plaintiff.

Intellectual Property

Intellectual property disputes involve far more than registered trademarks and copyrights. Although Young, Garcia & Quadrozzi routinely handles such matters with a resounding record of success, more often the intellectual property most critical to our sophisticated business clients consists of formulas, business processes, non-compete clauses and confidentiality agreements. Initially, the Firm consults with our business and entrepreneur clients to ensure that these interests are protected and enforced. When disputes arise, the Firm routinely litigates these types of intellectual property cases across the country.

 

BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC. V. COMPUTER METHODS CORPORATION

This case involved the joint venture development of high-tech tire tag technology between the parties. The Firm represented Defendant Computer Methods Corporation. The trial was in the U.S. District Court in Nashville, TN. Bridgestone/Firestone, represented by Jones Day Reavis & Pogue, sued for $23.0 Million and was awarded nothing by the jury in its verdict. The jury granted Computer Methods Corporation over $600,000 of a $700,000 Counterclaim against Bridgestone.

 

FORD V. TSC

Ford filed a lawsuit against TSC in Wayne County Circuit Court, claiming that the operational speeds in a complex software package were deficient. The Firm represented TSC, a public company. Ford asked for over $30 million in damages from TSC initially and demanded a verdict of $14 million at trial. The case was mediated for $6 million against TSC. After a 10-day trial, a jury awarded $3.1 million to Ford but the case was settled for substantially less prior to appeal.

 

ADVANCED AEROFOIL TECHNOLOGIES V. FLOWCASTINGS GMBH

The Firm represented a team of American and German entrepreneurs and engineers and their business venture, a jet engine supplier, in fraud and trade secret actions brought in the Northern District of Illinois, Southern District of New York and before the American Arbitration Association. After significant motion practice in the federal cases and a full arbitration hearing, the Firm won complete dismissal of all federal cases and an arbitration award of no cause of action for alleged misappropriation and all other claims. The arbitrator further awarded in excess of $300,000 in legal fees to the clients and against the plaintiffs.

 GARDEN FRESH GOURMET V. BUDDIES FOODS, ET AL.

Represented gourmet foods company in misappropriation of trade secret and unfair competition case against two former employees who stole trade secret recipe/formula for the client’s product, then formed new company to manufacture and sell their “knock-off” version. After week-long trial in state court, jury found defendants liable for misappropriation and awarded all damages sought by the Firm. Thereafter, the Firm secured permanent injunction preventing defendants from manufacturing their “knock-off” product and driving one defendant into bankruptcy.

 

MAI SYSTEMS CORPORATION V. PEAK COMPUTER, INC., ET AL.

The Firm represented plaintiff MAI Systems in this case involving copyright infringement allegations for computer operating systems. The Court ruled that when a computer is turned on, the transfer of the data from the hard drive to the RAM is equivalent of making a copy, and only the owner or licensee could do it. This created a significant problem for aftermarket service companies. It triggered efforts to pass a new law beginning in the U.S. House by Rep. Joseph Knollenberg (R.- Bloomfield Hills, Mich.) to revise the Copyright Act so that it would permit the “rightful possessor” of the program to copy it for that purpose. Mr. Young acted as lead lobbyist for the ultimately successful efforts to amend the Copyright Act.

 

KOLENE CORPORATION V. CIARLONE, ET AL.

This case involved allegations of conspiracy and expropriation of trade secrets against several Defendants. The Firm represented Plaintiff Kolene, the world’s largest manufacturer of molten salt cleaning systems for industrial processes ranging from aerospace to automobile. The Oakland County jury awarded Kolene a $1.3 million verdict and the Judge issued a Preliminary Injunction against Defendants, a competitor and a former Vice President.

 

REPUNETICS, INC. V. VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.

This case involved a contract dispute over the design and manufacture of sophisticated electronic disc-drive cabinets for Virtual. The Firm represented the Defendant Virtual. The Ann Arbor jury awarded Plaintiff nothing on its multi-million dollar claim against Virtual and awarded Virtual nearly $200,000 on its counterclaim. This case generated a great deal of interest in the high-tech market.

Let's Work Together

  • Young, Garcia & Quadrozzi, PC.
  • Orchards Corporate Center 27725 Stansbury Boulevard Suite 125
    Farmington Hills, MI 48334
  • info@youngpc.com
  • 248.353.8620
  • 248.479.7828
  • www.youngpc.com

    

Young & Associates

We are a litigation boutique that specializes in winning complex business trials. Our award-winning attorneys operate with a lean, aggressive style that is focused on success.

There is no typical Young, Garcia & Quadrozzi, PC. client. Our clients range from individuals to billion-dollar corporations in need of complex business litigation. The sole characteristic they share is their demand for success. We welcome the opportunity to handle your case.