How We've Won Cases With Or Without A Trial
Daryl M. Williams and M-14P, Inc. wins lawsuit against Craig and Hanne Ekberg
M-14P, Inc., sells and overhauls aircraft engines: the M-14P, -PF, AI-14, and Huosai engines. It was sued by a customer, Criag and Hanne Ekberg, who claimed the M-14P engine sold to them was defective. Filed four years after delivery of the engine, M-14P, Inc., counterclaimed for unpaid invoices and storage charges on an engine that was replaced with the factory-new M-14P engine. A Maricopa County Superior Court jury returned its unanimous verdict in favor of M-14P, Inc., denying Ekberg’s claim and awarded M-14P damages for storage and unpaid invoices.
The evidence at trial showed that Mr. Ekberg modified the engine by adding automotive wires and plugs that burned the engine up. The jury found that M-14P, Inc., did nothing wrong and one juror wrote an email to M-14P after the trial saying the jury wished it could award more damages against Mr. Ekberg.
VERDICT: $60 Million For Client In Remarkable Case
Williams 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 childcare centers in Arizona.
1. Prompt Preparation: We Prepare for Trial from the Onset
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 its 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. Outmaneuver: Being Prepared Gives Us the Advantage
We use prompt preparation to outmaneuver. We move fast, coherently asking the right questions. You cannot ask the right questions without knowing the case. Nor can you protect your client without dealing with any bad facts or curveballs. Our prompt preparation of all documents, conversations, texts, emails, and other interactions are neatly packed into a chronology with custom programing that takes advantage of state-of-the-art trial presentation technology.
We are able to outmaneuver the opposition in depositions and pretrial proceedings because the witness is at a disadvantage when the lawyer knows the case and the documents better than the witness and can instantly retrieve a crucial piece of evidence. This allows us to set traps and catch the witness flat footed. Within seconds we can pull up conversations they had or emails they sent contradicting what they said under oath. This puts the witness in a position of looking foolish or untruthful to a jury.
3. Facts-At-Fingertips: Winning the Jury’s Trust
We are able to win the jury’s trust by having all the facts and evidence at our fingertips for immediate visual display. 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 an opponent lies about something and we immediately contradict him with facts and evidence. While an opponent 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 can easily understand.
A jury will often decide a case based on whom they trust more because the technical issues may be too difficult for the jury to fully understand. After Daryl Williams won a defense verdict in favor of one of the world’s largest mortgage bankers, Mason-McDuffie, based on a forged loan commitment on company letterhead by a branch manager who embezzled the commitment fee for a $21 million construction loan, Daryl Williams took the jury out to lunch. At lunch, Daryl Williams asked the jurors what was pivotal for them during this six-week trial. One of the jurors said, paraphrasing, “I didn’t understand much about the case and all the documents, but I could tell you did, so I voted for you.”
Call or Email To Schedule A Consultation Now
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 freeway interchange. On Sinclair’s behalf, Daryl Williams argued that the state took the best land, leaving Sinclair with undeveloped property.
The state argued that the land it took could not have been developed either, so it was a battle of well-practiced experts. Diligence, preparation, and presentation resulted in a verdict that was many millions of dollars more than what the Arizona Department of Transportation had offered.
City of Kingman v. Kingman Airport Authority
The City of Kingman engaged Daryl Williams to retake possession of its airport from the city 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 instead, took a unique course: he just condemned the airport authority’s interest in its lease relying on Supreme Court cases from the 1790’s. 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 an evidentiary hearing was held. The court granted the city immediate possession of the leasehold interests of the airport authority. Game over.
Autonumerics v. Bayer Industries
Daryl Williams represented Autonumerics in a breach of contract action against Bayer Industries dealing with the computer numerical controls for milling machines built by Bayer. It was an installment 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 refused more deliveries. The contract did not have delivery dates, and there was a conflict between the written terms of the contract for a total of twenty-six very sophisticated computer controls Bayer claimed were defective rather than the defective interface manufactured by Bayer. The jury verdict was in favor of Autonumerics for all twenty-six controls, and, and Autonumerics was awarded its future lost profits.
A couple of years after the verdict was entered, I was standing in a line and bumped into the accountant that I cross examined in this matter. While standing in front of me, he turned to his colleague and said, “This guy taught me more about marginal cost accounting than I ever knew when I was on the witness stand getting slaughtered.” We then shook hands and chatted for a bit.
Arizona v. Grabinski
Represented in-house counsel for the Baptist Foundation of Arizona in the largest, longest 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, including claims against Arthur Andersen, then the largest accounting/auditing firm in the United States. 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 (the best criminal trial lawyer is Arizona handled the criminal issues) and involved transactions overseas and throughout the United States. Trial was ten months to a jury, and marked exhibits at trial numbered in the 30,000s; some 8,000 admitted. Verdict for Grabinski on all but one substantive count. See below statement made by Ken Fields, the judge who presided over this trial.
B. C. Enterprises v. Valley National Bank
B. C. Enterprises obtained an oral loan commitment to extend and expand the client’s credit facilities from Valley National Bank. Valley Bank denied that its loan officer had given the commitment, and called B. C. This 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 and allowed the claims of B. C. to proceed 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 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 and the Arizona appellate courts. The bankruptcy court awarded Daryl Williams fees exceeding over $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 over $10,000,000 in defects and a related case involving malpractice of an attorney who originally filed the case for the Deers. All issues were successfully resolved in this case that involved some thirteen defendants. The Deers recovered the costs of their home.
Join Our Long List of Successful Clients By Scheduling a Consultation Today
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 letterhead 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 a open account claim against Lake Havasu Plumbing and Fire Protection. The underlying claim was for $31,342, but the defendant used delaying tactics and interposed specious defenses so that, ultimately, the court awarded James, Cook & Hobson 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 Janey Napoliano. 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.
McMilliam Machine v. Harris
Daryl Williams represented McMilliam Machine against a competitor for violation of patents, trade dress, false advertising and other unfair trade practices. McMilliam Machine makes the .50 caliber sniper rifle used by 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 hired Daryl Williams and sued. The result: a jury verdict finding a breach, awarding damages and attorney’s fees for a total award of more than $8,000,000, 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 on Daryl Williams’ advice during the weekend following entry of the judgment and before an appeal could be filed. The building was bulldozed without any salvage—fixtures, freezers, coolers, shelves, and all. As a result, an appeal was unattractive to Kroger and the judgment was paid in full. No appeal.
Years later general counsel for Kroger was at a shopping center conference, ICSC, and ran into the principal and owner of the shopping center that Daryl Williams represented and who authorized the Kroger store to be bulldozed over. General counsel for Kroger said, paraphrasing, “Do you still have that maniac Daryl Williams working for you?”
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 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 at a court-ordered mediation. Terra accused Daryl Williams of bad faith mediation when he picked up his hat and gloves and walked out of the mediation. Terra spared no expense in the defense of the case including hiring a Harvard economist, accountants, and farming specialists, but Daryl Williams used better credentialed and carefully prepared experts to extrapolate the number of Terra acres where the ICM program should have been used, the adoption rate of new technologies in the farming industry, and comparison by a biological agricultural engineering experts for the program taken and what Terra used—the stolen idea is Terra’s product— to explain Terra Industries’ bad faith when it shelved the ICM program to keep it off the market. The jury verdict for lost profits and the resulting judgment was $15,000,000 against Terra.
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. The court awarded attorney’s fees to client.
Obtained pleading stage dismissal
Obtained pleading state dismissal of defamation action against television station in Arizona.