Case Results:

How To Win Cases With Or Without A Trial

VERDICT: $60 Million Won For Client In Landmark Case

WARNING: You are about to read some remarkable case results. However, past verdicts/settlements are not an indication of future results.

How do you go from being the underdog to winning the biggest judgment in Arizona that year? It comes down to our simple 3 step strategy.

Daryl represented Arizona-based RCS Capital Development against Australian-based A.B.C. Learning Centres Limited. The lawsuit arose out of a breach of contract by A.B.C.’s United States subsidiary with RCS for the development of child care centers in Arizona.

1. We front-loaded the case.

Attorneys often wait until the deposition to find out what happened. Not us. We start mastering the facts and evidence on day one. That means we are ready to get the evidence we need in depositions and to win the trial. That tends to put the opponent on his back foot early. In the RCS case, we mastered the documents well before the depositions and were ready with step 2 in our 3 step process.

2. We used the Rapid Outmaneuver tactic

By front-loading, we move fast, coherently ask the right questions, and prepare the client to deftly handle any bad facts or curve balls. That is because all of the documents, conversations, texts, emails, and other interactions are neatly packed into The Chron: custom programming that commands state-of-the-art trial presentation technology.

This has allowed us to outmaneuver the opposition in depositions and in pre-trial proceedings. We can set up traps and rely on their faulty memory to catch them flat footed. Within seconds we can pull up conversations they had or emails they sent contradicting what they say under oath. Then, if the case does not settle on favorable terms or if we do not win by pre-trial motion, we move on to trial and step 3.

3. We won the jury’s trust

Steps 1 and 2 are the foundation for step 3: winning the jury’s trust by having all of the facts and evidence at our finger tips for immediate visual display. For example, a critical turning point in a case may be when we come across as more knowledgeable about the inner decision-making process of a company.

Or when the opponent lies about something and we immediately contradict him with a needle-in-a-haystack email. While the opposition tries to remember details, we instantly have the answers on the screen to prove our point. Our entire case, in fact, is presented in a simple visual presentation that the jury understands and appreciates.

The jury often decides the case based on who they trust more, rather than the technical details. That’s why our cases are deliberately designed with jury trust in mind.

*Daryl Williams represented RCS in this matter while at his prior law firm. Likewise, other case results on this page may have involved the prior law firms of attorneys Daryl Williams or Daniel Mestaz.

Call Us To Schedule A Free Consultation Right Now

We'll look over your case and discuss a game plan​

602-256-9400

VERDICT: $1,777,918 Million Won For Client After Local Government Oversteps

Valley Aviation v. City of Glendale

Daryl Williams represented the ground-lessee of property at the City of Glendale Airport in claims against the city for discrimination and violation of federal grant assurances. Both a state

court action and an FAR Part 16 complaint were filed. Mr. Williams won a verdict for $1,777,918 against the city of Glendale (collected when the city’s payroll account was garnished before the notice of appeal) and an order by the FAA Administrator finding the city in violation of its grant assurances.

VERDICT/SETTLEMENT FOR OUR CLIENT: Seven figures.

State of Arizona v. Sinclair Oil Corporation

This case involved the condemnation of property owned by Sinclair Oil in Flagstaff. The condemned property was in low-lying land appropriated for a freeway interchange. On Sinclair’s behalf, Daryl Williams argued that the state took the best land, leaving Sinclair with undevelopable property.

The state argued that the land it took could not have been developed either, so it was a battle of experts. Our firm’s due diligence and eDiscovery process were pivotal in providing evidentiary support for the jury. The jury trial resulted in a verdict that was many millions of dollars more than the condemning agency had offered.

Join our long list of successful clients by scheduling a free consultation today.

We'll look over your case and discuss a game plan​

602-256-9400

VERDICT/SETTLEMENT FOR OUR CLIENT: $140,000 plus company ownership.

Dual Path v. Zandonatti

On behalf of the President and CTO of an internet technology company, Daniel Mestaz obtained a preliminary injunction for the return of funds taken by terminated officers, won a trial verdict awarding the client disputed company ownership, and the court awarded the client ninety percent of his attorney fees.

City of Kingman v. Kingman Airport Authority

The City of Kingman engaged Daryl Williams to retake possession of the airport from the city’s lessee, the Kingman Airport Authority. The lessee thought Mr. Williams would file an action for breach of the lease, which would have been a long and factually intensive quagmire. Mr. Williams took a simpler course: just condemn the airport authority’s interest in the lease. The airport authority was not ready for that. It filed a federal court case to stay the condemnation proceedings, which was dismissed. It attempted to remove the condemnation case to federal court claiming the condemnation violated the U.S. Constitution’s contract clause, which prohibits a city from making a “Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” The federal court sided with Mr. Williams, so the state court proceeded. After denying the airport authority’s motion to dismiss on Constitutional and other grounds, and after an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the city immediate possession of the leasehold interests of the airport authority. Game over.

Autonumerics v. Bayer Industries

Represented Autonumerics in a breach of contract action against Bayer Industries dealing with the computer numerical controls for milling machines built by Bayer. Installment sale contract under the Uniform Commercial Code. A first control was manufactured and delivered, but Bayer, thereafter, refused to accept a control that had been manufactured, and did not seek more deliveries; the contract did not have delivery dates and there was a conflict between the written terms of the contract. The order was for a total of twenty-six controls. Jury verdict in favor of Autonumerics for all twenty-six controls based on future lost profits. This was a first-impression case in Arizona under the installment sale provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code. Jury verdict in favor of Autonumerics

TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR 'WIN EARLY' STRATEGY

Let us take you by the hand and show you exactly how we will fight your case.​

602-256-9400

Arizona v. Grabinski

Represented in-house counsel for the Baptist Foundation of Arizona in the largest securities fraud trial in Arizona History. This was a white-collar criminal case against the former president and in-house counsel and involved proceedings in state and federal court, including the bankruptcy proceedings for Baptist Foundation of Arizona and the proceedings against the auditors for the Baptist Foundation. There were more than seventy lawyers involved in the various proceedings. The jury trial of the criminal matter was a complex fraud case involving securities, real estate, and other transactions over more than ten years. The amount at issue was $577 million, and the state asserted more than thirty counts against the defendants. Daryl Williams handled the transaction and securities issues in the case. The transaction issues dwarfed the criminal issues and involved transactions overseas and throughout the United States. Trial was ten months to a jury, and the marked exhibits at trial were numbered in the 30,000s; some 8,000 admitted. Verdict for Grabinksi on all but one substantive count.

B. C. Enterprises v. Valley National Bank

B. C. Enterprises obtained an oral loan commitment from Valley National Bank. Valley Bank denied that its loan officer had given the commitment. Valley Bank, meanwhile, called B.C. Enterprises loan, which resulted in the bankruptcy of B. C. Enterprises and its principals, guarantors of the loan. The bankruptcy court appointed Daryl Williams as special counsel for B. C. Enterprises, allowed the claims of B. C. to go forward in state court. B. C. was awarded a jury verdict of millions of dollars, enough to offset claims by the bank, allow the reorganization of B. C. Enterprises with a 100% payment of all creditors and a net award to B. C. Enterprises. The case involved both state-court and bankruptcy-court representation of B. C. Enterprises, including appeals to the Ninth Circuit. Attorney’s fees were awarded by the bankruptcy court to Daryl Williams for well of $1 million.

Deer v. CSN, et al.

Represented baseball star, Robert Deer, and his wife in a construction defects claim involving the construction of a custom home with in excess of $10,000,000 in defects and a related case involving malpractice of attorney who originally filed the case for the Deers. Resolved all issues successfully in this case that involved some thirteen defendants. The Deers recovered the costs of their home.

Mason McDuffie adv. Faber

Daryl Williams represented Mason McDuffie Mortgage Corporation in a breach of loan-commitment case involving a $21,000,000 take-out commitment for student housing near ASU. Mason McDuffie’s branch manager and vice president used company letter head to forge the loan commitment and pocket the commitment fee. The builder called for the take-out loan when the project was complete, but Mason McDuffie refused to fund because its employee was not authorized to make the commitment. The case was tried to a jury, which found in favor of Mason McDuffie.

James, Cook & Hobson v. Lake Havasu Plumbing and Fire Protection

Daryl Williams represented James, Cook & Hobson on an open account claim against Lake Havasu Plumbing and Fire Protection. The underlying claim was for $31,342.00, but the defendant used delaying tactics and interposed specious defenses so that, ultimately, the court awarded James, Cook the full amount of its recovery and one of if not the largest sanction award against the attorney for the defendant. The appeal of the award and sanction was handled by John P. Frank and Janet Napolitano. The sanction against the lawyer for Lake Havasu Plumbing was more than $40,000, more than the amount at issue in the case, and the appellate decision is the touchstone in Arizona for awards of sanctions against attorneys requiring honesty when representing a defendant even if it hurts the client.

McMillian Machine v. Harris

Daryl Williams represented McMillian Machine against a competitor for violation of patents, trade dress, false advertising and other unfair trade practices. McMillian Machine makes the .50 caliber sniper rifle used the armed forces of the United States, Israel and other countries. The competitor sought to palm his product off as a McMillian rifle. A permanent injunction and damages were awarded.

West Plaza Shopping Center v. Fred Meyer Stores

Daryl Williams represented West Plaza Shopping Center against Fred Meyer, a division of Kroger. Kroger entered into a lease for the construction of an anchor store in the shopping center. After the store was completed and fixturized, Kroger decided to abandon the idea of a big-box Fry’s Grocery Store at that location and subdivide the 130,000 sq. foot building. The landlord sued and obtained a jury verdict finding a breach, awarding damages and attorney’s fees of more than $8,000,000.00, and the landlord took over title to the building. An appeal, which would have tied up development and stymied the economic value of the shopping center, was anticipated, so the $10,000,000 building was bulldozed during the weekend following entry of the judgment making an appeal unattractive for Kroger. Judgement was paid in full. No appeal.

Workman AG Consultants v. Terra Industries

Daryl Williams represented Workman AG Consultants, which developed an Integrated Crop Management program that was acquired by Terra International, Inc., along with its acquisition of the assets of Workman AG Consultants. Terra, perhaps the world’s largest farm chemical company, agreed to pay a royalty of for each acre of cotton where the ICM program was used and agreed to use the principal of Workman as a consultant for five years. Terra did not use the

Workman ICM program, however, so Workman sued based on the violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Considered specious before trial, Terra offered to settle for $150,000. Terra spared no expense in the defense of the case, including hiring a Harvard economist, accountants, and farming specialists, but Workman used similarly credentialed experts to extrapolate the number of Terra acres where the ICM program could be used, the adoption rate of new technologies in the farming industry, and comparison by a biological agricultural engineering expert of the program used—the stolen idea—by Terra Industries with the program Terra shelved. The jury verdict for lost profits and the resulting judgment were approximately $15,000,000 against Terra.

Represented high technology company

Represented high technology company in dispute arising from termination of executive team, and through injunction recovered patents from former CEO.

On behalf of flight school

On behalf of flight school, obtained complete defense jury verdict against competitor on claims that client unlawfully interfered by stealing its customers and flight instructors. Court awarded attorney fees to client.

On behalf of large home warranty company

On behalf of large home warranty company, obtained summary judgment on two class actions for damages, one arising from the company’s refusal to replace recalled furnaces, the other arising from alleged misleading advertising

Represented homeowners against the city

Represented homeowners in lawsuit against city, arising from city’s approval of an illegal development adjacent to client’s home.

Represented homeowners against insurer

Represented homeowners in insurance claim negotiations with fire insurer.

Defended against State’s condemnation action

Defended against State’s condemnation action, resulting in fair market value judgment for client in amount of approximately $20 million for 300+ acres in Mesa, Arizona.

Obtained pleading stage dismissal

Obtained pleading stage dismissal of defamation action against television station., Arizona.

Obtained judgment

Obtained judgment on behalf of television station for unpaid advertising.

Obtained pleading stage dismissal

Obtained pleading stage dismissal of fraud claim against real estate lender.

Represented service stations owners

Represented service stations owners in dispute with gasoline supplier, arising from wholesale pricing of gas.

Represented automotive finance company

Represented automotive finance company in various disputes with auto dealers, arising from cars sold out of trust or nonpayment.

Represented automotive finance company

Represented automotive finance company in action against lender for allowing dealer to withdraw funds.

READY TO HIRE AN FIRM WITH OUR TRACK RECORD?

Give us a call today for a free consultation.​

602-256-9400

Represented movie studio

Represented movie studio against video retailer, arising from breach of video rental sharing agreement.

Represented large manufacturer

Represented large manufacturer of satellite “smart cards” in copyright and patent infringement dispute with satellite service provider.

Successfully defended

Successfully defended fast food franchisees in lawsuit brought by franchisor.

Thwarted efforts of large insurance company

Thwarted efforts of large insurance company to discover, by subpoena, a client’s proprietary business methods, and recovered attorney fees for client on the grounds that the subpoena was not substantially justified.

Obtained pleading stage dismissal

Obtained pleading stage dismissal of civil RICO claims brought by medical franchisor against doctor franchisee.

Successfully defended

Successfully defended fast food franchisees in lawsuit brought by franchisor.

Successfully represented small business owner

Successfully defended fast food franchisees in lawsuit brought by franchisorSuccessfully represented small business owner in federal court involving default on usurious loan.

Persuaded Arizona Attorney General

Persuaded Arizona Attorney General to drop regulatory investigation of retailer client.

Represented tribal council of large Native American tribe

Represented tribal council of large Native American tribe in internal investigation into legal violations by tribal officials arising from contractual relationship with internet service provider.

Represented provider of national security

Represented provider of national security solutions and communications systems in high profile Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigation.

Represented real estate broker

Represented real estate broker in FDIC investigation arising out of failed loans by insolvent lenders.

Represented condominium owners

Represented condominium owners in zoning violation criminal action brought by City of Phoenix.

Represented real estate agent

Represented real estate agent in defense of federal mortgage fraud charges arising out of alleged “cash back” scheme.

Call Us To Schedule A Free Consultation Right Now

We'll take a look at your case and discuss a game plan​

602-256-9400

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us, though doing so does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established. Our description of what we believe to be superior technology and how we win cases reflects our typical approach to litigation, which we believe:  (i) gives us a competitive advantage, and (ii) is responsible for any success we have had. But we do not win every case. Other lawyers may have technology or approaches that they believe gives them an advantage. Also, the results that we have obtained in other cases or that are described in our clients’ testimonials do not guarantee, promise, or predict the outcome of your case, which depends on the law, facts, and evidence specific to it.