This week, a Fairfield County client decided not to proceed further with the firm after receiving strong cautionary advice about their efforts to offer unregistered investment opportunities to non-accredited parties. While it’s disappointing to lose a client — particularly when they decline to pay their final bill — overall it’s better to part ways with someone who starts shopping around when they are given good advice.
I spent about twenty minutes digging through my electronic files to come up with two different versions of an LLC resolution about a change of membership for a Middletown package store, which the client last year apparently did not sign. I had wondered for a while whether they would get a copy back to me, but didn’t want to pester them after we concluded our work together. Lesson learned: follow up for paperwork, even when the client says everything’s wrapped up.
On a pro bono matter for Meriden Superior Court, today I need to assemble and mail small claims to a Connecticut town and their contractor regarding theft of personal property under color of law.
Last week, I argued a motion to dismiss in a Bridgeport Superior Court lawsuit about a business purchase gone sour. The seller also is the landlord of the purchased business, and despite all their assurances, the place caught fire a few days after closing of the purchase. That’s just one of the quirky things about the deal. Seller’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss the count against one of the defendants, arguing there wasn’t sufficient facts alleged to sustain the count. But that’s classic material for a motion to strike, not a motion to dismiss. And a motion to strike can be cured by amending the complaint … just a quirky thing about the lawsuit. Another quirky thing is that while pushing the motion to dismiss for one defendant, seller’s counsel blew their own extended deadline to answer the complaint for another defendant.
Occasionally, the firm handles patent matters in the USPTO. This week, the firm worked with a SaaS client to prepare an expert declaration and a response to office action for a network security software invention. Often, such inventions receive “101 rejections” in which a patent examiner will argue that the invention is an “abstract idea”. Thanks to careful work by the firm and the inventors when preparing the original application, there was no 101 rejection in this case. The expert declaration and response should be adequate to overcome the 103 (obviousness) rejections and the 112 (clarity) rejections.
I’m working on a prejudgment remedy for a seller-side lawsuit in Milford Superior Court about another business purchase gone wrong. The trend I’m seeing in my practice is that business purchases often don’t work out, and when they don’t, clients find me.
In a dispute between business partners, also in Milford Superior Court, the defendant’s counsel tried to get a continuance (rescheduling) on a status conference that only they and I have to attend — because their client would be on vacation. Classic dodge to delay the matter when they have no facts on their side.
The firm does handle Federal litigation. In New Haven Federal District Court, the judge dismissed pending motions for prejudgment remedy based on the advancing status of settlement negotiations between the firm’s client (defendant / counterclaimant) and the plaintiff / counterclaim defendant.
I’ll keep saying when anyone asks, “arbitration is great if you’re the respondent”. It’s expensive, which dissuades claimants. Then even if a claimant fronts their fees, the respondent can delay or even tank the arbitration by simply refusing to pay their own fees. A terrible farce of private “justice”.
Another USPTO matter, this one for a disputed trademark. The firm’s client used it first. Then their competitor filed an “intent to use” application for the identical mark. Now we’re about to see the competitor’s application published for opposition. Sandollar Law will be on it as soon as it publishes.
Sometimes, trade name disputes end up in State court. For example, a Bridgeport Superior Court dispute over the name of a medical services company. I’ll be defending the case. The issue of “acquired distinctiveness” for a purely descriptive trade name will present a high hurdle for the plaintiff to jump. Usually, survey evidence is needed to substantiate acquired distinctiveness. That’s an expense that I doubt the plaintiff is prepared to cover.
There are a few steps required to ‘cite in’ a party to an existing lawsuit. Opposing counsel kindly reminded me of a step to be taken in order to bring in a cross-defendant who can indemnify my client for at least part of their debt in a pending collections case in Bridgeport Superior Court.
The firm has been trying for a while to settle a protracted collections case in New Haven Superior Court. It never should have been there in the first place. Now time and money are burning on both sides.
For another patent matter, the firm instructed European counsel how to address a set of rejections in the EPO (European Patent Office) for an ophthalmic lens invention. The inventor is engaged in license negotiations with a major discount eyewear company.
I had the privilege of advising a smaller client on copyright and trademark issues for a book they intend to publish.
The firm’s newest client has a commercial debt collection case that will be filed in New Britain Superior Court. Not much more to say for now, though I look forward to speaking with the defendants’ counsel this week.
One of the firm’s older clients needed a little follow up on the settlement of a dispute with a former business partner.
