We picked this case up just 3 weeks before trial.  It had an interesting procedural history: the district court judge originally dismissed the case on summary judgment and held that defendants won as a matter of law.  The plaintiff, John, appealed the case on his own – pro se – to the Minnesota Court of Appeals with the help of his wife, who is a practicing criminal defense attorney.  The Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment and held that a jury needed to determine fact disputes before either side won.  So it was sent back down to the district court for trial.  John retained us just 3 weeks before his trial date.

The basic facts: John had partnered with “Jim” to create a start-up company.  The two worked together for a year and half building the company.  A major retailer expressed interest in buying the company’s product and putting it on shelves for the holiday season to test it out.  John and Jim agreed that John would acquire a 10% ownership stake in the company when the retailer issued it’s purchase order.

A few months before the retailer issued a purchase order, John and Jim had some disagreements relating to the company.  Jim then reached out to several of John’s acquaintances for help, including “Kip,” the broker negotiating the deal with Retailer.  Kip then worked with Jim to try to pressure and force John to release his ownership interest in the company.  When those efforts failed, Kip contacted Retailer and told it to cancel its purchase order.  Retailer cancelled the order, and John therefore didn’t acquire 10% of the company.

John sued Kip for interfering with the contact he had with Jim.  The jury found that Kip tortuously interfered with the contract and, after a 5 day trial, awarded him $175,000.

We picked up an interesting case from another firm right before trial – the client, “Jenny,” and the lawyers who handled the case for her throughout most of litigation wanted us to try the case.  Jenny was suing Coldwell Banker Burnet and one of its real estate agents for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.  We tried the case in front of a jury and got a full Plaintiff’s verdict on Monday – the jury answered every question in the affirmative for Jenny and gave her every dime that we requested.

The basic facts were as follows.  Jenny had a real estate agent that she trusted fully and implicitly on real estate investment transactions for years.  He presented a vacant land deal involving 3 properties to her in summer 2013 and she purchased them.  It turned out that the land was worth only about 25% of what Jenny paid for it.  Her agent had not done any due diligence, research, or analysis regarding the properties before he presented them to her.  When she asked him about it, he said that he wasn’t acting as her agent when he brought her the properties, so he hadn’t done anything wrong.

The jury disagreed.  The jury found that he was acting as her agent and owed her fiduciary duties, which he breached.  The Hennepin County jury also found that he was negligent, and awarded Jenny every dime of damages that she sought.

We were honored to represent her and grateful for the jury’s ability to effectively sort through the facts to find the truth on a somewhat complicated case.

Last week, Madia Law secured a favorable jury verdict in a federal business litigation case involving allegations of trademark infringement. Madia Law’s client, Heimerl & Lammers, is a small Minneapolis personal injury firm.

In January 2014, California-based Mountain Marketing Group and Minnesota-based Krueger Law Firm sued Heimerl & Lammers, alleging that the law firm infringed on their trademark “1-800-INJURED” when it began using “612-INJURED” in the Twin Cities. MMG and Krueger were represented by the law firm Moss & Barnett.

After nearly two full years of litigation, United States District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson denied the parties’ motions for summary judgment and set the case for hearing before a federal jury. Heimerl & Lammers then retained Madia Law to represent the firm at the trial, which lasted over a week at the federal courthouse in St. Paul.

Three weeks before trial, the Plaintiffs demanded $1 million to settle the case and claimed it was “certain” that they would win. At trial, however, they only asked the jury for one dollar. The jury deliberated for less than 2 hours before returning a complete defense verdict – a total victory in favor of Heimerl & Lammers.

Madia Law takes cases on the eve of trial and ramps up quickly. We take pride in being hired by clients (and often, other lawyers) just weeks before trial. Because we’ve tried so many cases, and have so much experience with so many different judges and juries, we’re able to quickly work through stacks of paper to identify and focus on the documents that will matter to a jury. We develop a case theme that’s clear, logical, and respects the jury.

If you are an attorney who’s litigated a case all the way to trial, but you feel that you need trial support, we’re here to help. We can assist any way that you feel would be helpful, whether it’s working with you on opening, closing, and trial exams; trying the case together; or trying the case on our own – we can get it done. We understand the investment you’ve made in getting the case to trial, the value you have for your client, and the importance of finishing the job right. We’re confident in our ability to take cases on the eve of trial and bring them home.