Businesses & Industries We Serve

Litigation Cases

At Mulcahy LLP, our attorneys have litigated over 100 trials to conclusion. Understanding that clients have different business and litigation objectives, we tailor our strategy in each case to address those objectives.

  • American Isuzu v. Fladeboe

    American Isuzu v. Fladeboe

    (U.S. District Court, Central District of California) the firm, on behalf of the U.S. distributor of Isuzu vehicles, successfully prosecuted a vehicle dealer for trademark infringement after the dealer sued for breach of contract.

  • Association for Information Media and Equipment, et al. v. The Regents of the University of California, et al.

    Association for Information Media and Equipment, et al. v. The Regents of the University of California, et al.

    (United State District Court, Central District of California), Mulcahy LLP is currently working alongside the Washington D.C. based firm of Lutzker and Lutzker in pursuing a claim of copyright infringement on behalf of a producer and distributor of educational videos against the University of California, Los Angeles.

  • Aussie Pet Mobile, Inc., et al., v. Concentric Equity Partners, LP, et al.

    Aussie Pet Mobile, Inc., et al., v. Concentric Equity Partners, LP, et al.

    (California Superior Court, Orange County, 2010), Mulcahy LLP represented the franchisor in a lawsuit against one of its preferred shareholders involving claims of fraud and breach of contract.

  • Barnett’s v. American Suzuki

    Barnett’s v. American Suzuki

    (North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles) the firm, on behalf of the U.S. distributor of Suzuki vehicles, defended a vehicle dealer’s protest of the addition of a new dealer and claim of unfair allocation of product in violation of North Carolina law.

  • Bernard v. Resort Development

    Bernard v. Resort Development

    (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois), Durian v. Kock (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois), Korpai v. Bingham (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois), In Re Financed Precious Metals ...

  • Bosch v. Suzuki

    Bosch v. Suzuki

    (California New Motor Vehicle Board) the firm, on behalf of the distributor of Suzuki vehicles, defended a dealer’s protest of its termination. The firm obtained a stipulated order dismissing the proceeding, with the dealer paying the firm’s client for its fees and expenses.

  • Budget Blinds Enforcement Actions.

    Budget Blinds Enforcement Actions.

    Mulcahy LLP filed the following lawsuits on behalf the same franchisor client to recover unpaid fees, enforce the non-competition clause in the franchise agreements, and to protect the client’s trademarks and trade secrets against existing or former franchisees that were operating outside the system.

  • Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Asta Saknyte, et al.

    Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Asta Saknyte, et al.

    (United States District Court, Central District of California, January 2010), Mulcahy LLP initiated a lawsuit on behalf of a franchisor against former franchisees for their: (1) failure to come current with their monetary obligations; (2) violation of the noncompetition provision of the franchise agreement; (3) unauthorized use of the franchisor’s proprietary marks; and (4) failure to comply with the post termination provisions of the franchise agreement.

  • Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Budget Blinds & Shutters, et al.

    Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Budget Blinds & Shutters, et al.

    (United States District Court, Central District of California, January 2010), defendant commenced operation of a competing business utilizing a trade name confusingly similar to that of franchisor Budget Blinds, Inc.’s proprietary marks.

  • Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Juan Carlos Carlin

    Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Juan Carlos Carlin

    (United States District Court, Central District of California, March 2010), defendant, a former licensee, continued to operating a competing business utilizing the licensor’s service marks and trade name and in violation of the noncompetition provision contained within the parties’ license agreement.

  • Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Lyle Hayman et. al.

    Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Lyle Hayman et. al.

    (AAA, Orange County, California and United States District Court, Central District of California, September 2009), Mulcahy LLP was retained to file a demand for arbitration against defendants, former franchisees, as a result of their operation of a competing window covering business in violation of their franchise agreement.

  • Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Sherre Paschal, et al.

    Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Sherre Paschal, et al.

    (United States District Court, Central District of California, May 2010), Mulcahy LLP initiated litigation on behalf of a franchisor against former franchisees for breach of contract, service mark infringement and injunctive relief.

  • Cascade v. American Suzuki

    Cascade v. American Suzuki

    (U.S. District Court, District of Oregon) the firm, representing the U.S. distributor of Suzuki vehicles, defended numerous claims asserted by a terminated vehicle dealer against the distributor and the dealer who replaced the terminated dealer.

  • Childress v. Suzuki

    Childress v. Suzuki

    (Arizona Motor Vehicle Board) the firm represented the distributor of Suzuki vehicles and obtained a dismissal of a dealer’s protest of its termination. The firm then successfully handled the opposition to the dealer’s appeal.

  • Clark Equipment Company v. Lift Parts Mfg.

    Clark Equipment Company v. Lift Parts Mfg.

    Jim Mulcahy successfully represented Clark Equipment in cases brought under the United States Copyright Act, Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, federal and state unfair competition law, and under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, their counterparts under state antitrust laws, and the Robinson Patman Act.

  • Continental Sales v. American Suzuki

    Continental Sales v. American Suzuki

    (Utah Department of Motor Vehicles) the firm, representing the U.S. distributor of Suzuki vehicles, opposed a vehicle dealer’s petition to prevent the relocation of another vehicle dealer of the same line make in the relevant market area.

  • Dousette v. Red Brick Pizza

    Dousette v. Red Brick Pizza

    (Los Angeles County Superior Court) the firm, representing a franchisor, successfully petitioned the court to grant a new trial following a trial handled by other counsel.

  • ET Publishing International, Inc., v. Pacific Periodicals, LLC

    ET Publishing International, Inc., v. Pacific Periodicals, LLC

    (U.S. District Court, Central District, County of Los Angeles, 2011), Mulcahy LLP defended a large California distributor of Spanish language periodicals against breach of contract claims from the publisher of those periodicals.

  • Fladeboe v. American Isuzu

    Fladeboe v. American Isuzu

    (Orange County Superior Court) the firm represented the U.S. distributor of Isuzu vehicles, defending the claims of a vehicle dealer who alleged that the distributor had wrongfully withheld consent to the transfer of the franchise.

  • Gold, et al. v. Melt Franchising, LLC, et al.

    Gold, et al. v. Melt Franchising, LLC, et al.

    (Los Angeles County Superior Court, June 2008 & California Court of Appeals, April 2010), fifteen persons and entities purporting to represent a nationwide class of franchisees of Melt Franchising filed a class action suit against Melt, alleging fraud and violations of state franchise laws.

  • Hauck v. Centel Telephone Company

    Hauck v. Centel Telephone Company

    (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois) Jim Mulcahy as lead trial counsel successfully defended a $38 million action alleging the defective design and installation of telephone system infrastructure.

  • KFC Corporation v. Parvez Shaikh, et al.

    KFC Corporation v. Parvez Shaikh, et al.

    (United States District Court, Central District of California, April 2009), Mulcahy LLP initiated a lawsuit on behalf of a franchisor against a former franchisee for claims of breach of contract, trademark infringement, and unfair business practices, among others.

  • LA Suzuki v. Suzuki

    LA Suzuki v. Suzuki

    (California New Motor Vehicle Board) the firm represented the distributor of Suzuki vehicles when one of its dealers protested the addition of a new dealer. The firm’s handling of the matter led the dealer to dismiss its claims with prejudice during discovery.

  • Lifesource Water Systems, Inc. v Sun Water Systems, Inc., et al

    Lifesource Water Systems, Inc. v Sun Water Systems, Inc., et al

    (California Superior Court, County of Orange, 2011), Mulcahy LLP defended a manufacturer of water filtration systems against claims of false advertising and unfair competition. The case settled just short of trial.

  • Lippo v. Mobil Oil Corporation

    Lippo v. Mobil Oil Corporation

    (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois), Lawmen’s and Shooter’s Supply, Inc. v. Smith and Wesson (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida), and Smith and Wesson v. Knight Enterprises (U.S. District Court, Arizona) Jim Mulcahy was lead trial counsel for Smith and Wesson and Mobil in claims alleging violations of antitrust laws, trademark infringement, violation of franchising statutes, and breach of manufacturer/dealer contracts.

  • Lunkenheimer v. Tomkins, P.L.C.

    Lunkenheimer v. Tomkins, P.L.C.

    (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio) Jim Mulcahy was the lead trial counsel for Tomkins, P.L.C., a multinational company based in the United Kingdom, in a suit brought by an industrial valve company alleging breach of contract, fraud, trademark infringement, antitrust violations, theft of trade secrets and unfair competition.

  • Melt Franchising , LLC v. PMI Enterprises, Inc.

    Melt Franchising , LLC v. PMI Enterprises, Inc.

    Melt Franchising, a gelato italiano franchisor, terminated a Massachusetts franchisee for violating terms of the franchise agreement. Following the termination, Melt retained Mulcahy LLP, who immediately filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting that the franchisee comply with the post-termination provisions of the franchise agreement.

  • Meyers v. Conehead Investments, Inc.

    Meyers v. Conehead Investments, Inc.

    In Meyers v. Conehead Investments, Inc. (Los Angeles County Superior Court) the firm represented a Cold Stone Creamery franchise and prevailed on a cutting edge question regarding the enforceability of an arbitration provision in a franchise agreement.

  • Play N Trade Enforcement Actions.

    Play N Trade Enforcement Actions.

    Mulcahy LLP filed the following lawsuits on behalf the same franchisor client to recover unpaid fees, enforce the non-competition clause in the franchise agreements, and to protect the client’s trademarks and trade secrets against former franchisees operating outside the system.

  • PRASA v. Beatrice Corp.

    PRASA v. Beatrice Corp.

    (U.S. District Court, District of Puerto Rico) Jim Mulcahy was the lead trial counsel for Beatrice in a $100 million suit alleging breach of implied and express warranties after Puerto Rico’s water supply system failed.

  • RGB Systems, Inc. v. Valcom, Inc.

    RGB Systems, Inc. v. Valcom, Inc.

    Mulcahy LLP is working with the Madison, Wisconsin firm of DeWitt Ross & Stevens, S. C. in defending a lawsuit against their manufacturer client involving claims of patent infringement. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court, Central District, County of Orange.

  • SanSai – Assignment for the Benefit of Creditor Cases.

    SanSai – Assignment for the Benefit of Creditor Cases.

    Mulcahy LLP represents the purchaser of assets from an assignment for the benefit of creditors against fraudulent transfer claims filed by several debtors in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

  • Stuft Pizza v. Rai

    Stuft Pizza v. Rai

    (Orange County Superior Court) the firm represented a franchisor who sued four terminated franchisees for trademark infringement and related claims. The firm also defended the franchisees’ $3.5 million counterclaim for fraud and breach of contract.

  • Submarina v. S&D #4

    Submarina v. S&D #4

    (San Diego Superior Court) the firm successfully enforced the termination of a franchise and obtained preliminary and permanent injunctions on behalf of a franchisor against a franchisee who had failed to pay royalties.

  • Submarina v. Sial

    Submarina v. Sial

    (U.S. District Court, Southern District of California) the firm obtained a TRO on behalf of a franchisor against a franchisee for violation of the Lanham Act.

  • Tailored Living, LLC v. PremierGarage Holdings, LLC

    Tailored Living, LLC v. PremierGarage Holdings, LLC

    (U.S. District Court, Central District, County of Orange, 2011), Mulcahy LLP initiated and action on behalf of its franchisor client against a manufacturer for breach of the parties’ supply agreement. The case was dismissed on April 17, 2012 following a settlement in which the client acquired the trademarks and service marks of the manufacturer.

  • Tomcat Consulting, LLC v. Play N Trade Franchise, Inc., et al.

    Tomcat Consulting, LLC v. Play N Trade Franchise, Inc., et al.

    (Orange County Superior Court and California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, May 2010), terminated Play N Trade franchisee Tomcat Consulting, LLC (“Tomcat”) initiated a lawsuit against the franchisor asserting various causes of action for: (1) the franchisor’s alleged failure to approve a transfer of Tomcat’s franchise agreement to a prospective franchisee (“Transfer Claims”); ...

  • Zee One v. Suzuki and Gerald Suzuki v. Suzuki

    Zee One v. Suzuki and Gerald Suzuki v. Suzuki

    (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois) the firm, working on behalf of the distributor of Suzuki vehicles, defended claims filed by dealers challenging their termination.


mulcahyfontlogo.jpg

4 Park Plaza, Suite 1230
Irvine, CA 92614
T 949.252.9377
F 949.252.0090

Copyright ©2012 Mulcahy LLP. All rights reserved. The transmission of information to and from the site, in part or in whole, does not create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between senders and/or recipients and Mulcahy LLP.

Privacy Policy and our Disclaimer.   Franchise Law

mulcahyfontlogo.jpg