On April 23, 2010, after almost four weeks of evidence before an Hidalgo County jury of six men and six women, the jury returned a verdict denying every claim asserted against Playboy by plaintiffs, including breach of contract, fraud, theft, and antitrust violations, and rejecting plaintiffs’ contention that they suffered $16 million in actual damages. Instead, the jury concluded that plaintiffs breached the contracts with Playboy, plaintiffs defrauded Playboy, and awarded Playboy damages, fees, and costs of over $2.0 million.
“They should have known we wouldn’t bring a knife to a gun fight,” concluded Playboy’s General Counsel, Howard Shapiro.
In January 2010, Superior Court California, County of Los Angeles, Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, Inc., along with counsel from Shook, Hardy & Bacon (Kansas City and San Francisco offices), and on behalf of our client, Lorillard Tobacco Company, received a significant defense verdict. After nearly eight weeks of trial, a Los Angeles jury found in favor of the defendants in Cox v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., et al. Robert Cox was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2008. Cox claimed he smoked Lorillard’s Kent cigarettes with filters that contained asbestos. The jury awarded a complete defense verdict on behalf of our client, concluding that there was no design defect and Lorillard did not have a duty to warn the plaintiff. John Reilly, Associate General Counsel for Lorillard, was quoted as saying, “Given the venue and this plaintiffs’ firm, this victory has to be considered one of the most significant in the 25-year history of Kent filter litigation.”
In December of 2009, The City of San Antonio, Texas, acting by and through The City Public Service Board of San Antonio, a Texas Municipal Utility (“CPS Energy”) was embroiled in a dispute with Nuclear Innovation North America, LLC, NINA Texas 3 LLC, NINA Texas 4 LLC (the “NINA Companies”) and NRG Energy, Inc. (collectively “Nuclear Developers”) over ownership interests in the development of a $16 billion nuclear plant (the “South Texas Project”) near Bay City, Texas. CPS Energy and the NINA Companies entered into a contract providing each a 50% undivided interest in the project. In the process of developing the site each was spending over a million dollars a day by Fall 2009.
By December of 2009, CPS Energy had invested around $370 million in the South Texas Project and was considering a way to reduce its interest in the project. However, the NINA Companies claimed CPS Energy had constructively withdrawn from the South Texas Project and no longer had any interest in the project or, alternatively, would lose everything it had put in the project if it stopped funding the project. CPS Energy was under attack on various fronts and negotiations stalled with the NINA Companies offering CPS Energy a package that had a cash equivalent of around $240 million. CPS Energy then retained Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, Inc. to team up with Sonnenschein Nath & Rasenthal, LLP to file suit and push for the earliest possible trial setting.
The team defended CPS Energy on all fronts and went on the offensive. We defeated the NINA Companies’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order and procured a setting for the trial to begin in about a month. Then we began discovery on an expedited basis. About a million pages of documents were collected, reviewed and produced over seven days. We then began receiving and reviewing the documents produced by the Nuclear Developers and twenty-one depositions were taken over eleven days.
A plea in intervention was filed by an anti-nuclear non-profit organization fourteen days before trial. The order dismissing the intervention was signed eight days later. The case was removed and remanded twice in the span of six days (two of which were a weekend and a third was a federal holiday) and the first order of remand was issued on Martin Luther King Day. The NINA Companies filed two mandamuses on three separate issues and requested a stay of the case which was denied. After at least four attempts to continue the case were denied, the case proceeded to trial just fifty days after the lawsuit was filed.
The trial before Judge Larry Noll lasted a week and at the conclusion he issued an Order in favor of CPS Energy that was promptly turned into a settlement with a cash equivalent of around $1.3 billion. Mayor Julián Castro’s letter of thanks concluded as follows:
My words today can only begin to convey my gratitude for the tremendous effort and exceptional work product provided by your team on this extraordinary case. With your help CPS and San Antonio were able to successfully protect the investment made on behalf of our ratepayers. As a result, our energy future is secure. San Antonio is privileged to have you and your firm call it “home” and I was privileged to witness your impact on this litigation.
Special thanks goes out to the folks at Sonnenschein Nath & Rasenthal, LLP for being a tremendous teammate in our joint representation of CPS Energy. We look forward to future engagements with them.
In September 2008, Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, along with Shook, Hardy & Bacon from Kansas City, and on behalf of our client Lorillard Tobacco Company, went to trial in Bexar County District Court, San Antonio, Texas. The plaintiff claimed that he developed mesothelioma from smoking cigarettes manufactured with asbestos in the filter during the time period of 1954-1956. After a four-week trial, the jury found that the plaintiff failed to prove that he even smoked the cigarettes at issue and awarded a complete defense verdict for our client.
In April 2008, Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, Inc., on behalf of clients Brown & Brown, Inc. and its Houston subsidiary, went to trial defending complex litigation brought by Great American Insurance Company. Great American alleged it had paid millions of dollars in false claims because the Houston subsidiary created fraudulent Great American insurance policies which were sent to dozens of clients, and Brown & Brown, Inc. tried to cover it up. Great American sought to recover at least $97 million, alleging multiple causes of action including violations of RICO, violations of federal trademark and state insurance laws, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and breach of contract. Great American incurred approximately $20 million in attorney fees and expenses prosecuting the case. During the course of the litigation over 115 witnesses were deposed, including 35 expert witnesses, and millions of pages of documents were produced. During the trial, the court dismissed the RICO claim against our clients and granted a directed verdict in favor of Brown & Brown, Inc. on all pending claims. The Harris County jury ultimately awarded only a small fraction of what Great American spent on attorney fees and expenses.
In April 2008, Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, along with David Beck and Joe Jamail of Houston, and on behalf of our client Clear Channel Communications, filed a lawsuit against Citigroup, Inc., Credit Suisse Group, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland Group, and Wachovia Corp. The firm obtained a temporary restraining order preventing these banks from reneging on their commitment to finance a $22 billion leveraged buyout and also obtained an immediate date for a Texas jury trial. The case was resolved within a matter of weeks, and the merger, which was touted as one of the largest leveraged buyouts in United States history, was successfully put back on track.
In February 2006, Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza and Michael Caddell of Houston, on behalf of our clients, Tetco, Inc., Spot Services, L.P., Los Nietos De Turner, LP. and Tetco Stores, L.P., went to trial against Exxon Corporation, Mobil Oil Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corporation, and Mobil Marketing Ventures, Inc. in Bexar County, Texas alleging that, after merging, Exxon Mobil violated distribution and marketing agreements it had with our clients. Defendants were represented by David Beck and Alistair Dawson of the law firm of Beck, Redden & Secrest in Houston. After a five-week trial, the jury awarded our clients $33,600,000 in damages. VerdictSearch listed the victory as the 52nd largest verdict in the nation in 2006.
In March 2005, Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, on behalf of our client, General Electric Capital Business Asset Funding Corporation, went to trial against S.A.S.E. Military Ltd., Vanderburg Investments, Inc., and John Q. Vanderburg in the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, claiming unpaid interest and principal as well as damages for unpaid taxes, fees, and maintenance costs, as well as its attorneys' fees. After a four-week trial, the jury awarded our clients $13,936,094 in compensatory damages.
In September 2005, Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, on behalf of our client Andes Trading De Mexico, S.A. De C.V., went to trial against Church & Dwight Co., Inc. in Trenton, New Jersey, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference. After an eight-week trial, a jury awarded our clients $15,000,000 in damages.
In February 2003, Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, on behalf of our client DuPont, went to trial defending claims brought by one of DuPont’s former distributors. After a one-week trial in Austin, Texas, the case was settled on terms very favorable to our client.
In March 2002, Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, along with Kendall Montgomery of Houston and Vincent Marable and Paul Webb of Wharton, Texas, on behalf of our client, Corporacion Pipsa S.A. de C.V., sued Johnson Controls, Inc., Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc., and Global Energy Systems S.A. de C.V. alleging fraud and promissory estoppel in connection with supplying raw materials for car batteries. A Bexar County jury awarded our client $6,300,000 in actual damages and $15,500,000 in punitive damages.
In May 2001, Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza represented a large hotel owner in a high profile arbitration against one of their franchisees. The plaintiff sought over $1 billion in damages, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and a litany of other claims. After a six-week arbitration held before a retired federal judge in Washington, D.C., the plaintiff was awarded very nominal damages on only one claim, but also ordered to pay a portion of our clients’ attorneys fees, resulting in plaintiff making a net payment to our client.
In May 1999, Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza went to trial on behalf of our client, Valores Corporativos, S.A. de C.V., Casa Chapa, S.A. de C.V. and Chapa Trading Co., Inc., against McClane Corporation and Wal-Mart alleging breach of contract. The jury awarded our client over $624,000,000 in actual damages.
In October 1997, Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza went to trial on behalf of our client, Bonanza Restaurants, against one of our client’s franchisees alleging various breaches of the franchise agreement. The plaintiff sought over $8 million in damages. After a three-week trial in Sioux City, Iowa, a jury returned a take-nothing verdict in favor of our client.
In August 1997, Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza went to trial on behalf of our client, Bennigan’s Restaurants, in a premises liability case involving a shooting at one of our client’s restaurants. After a three-week trial in Houston, Texas, a jury returned a take-nothing verdict in favor of our client.
In the Fall of 1996, Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, along with Bartlit-Beck from Chicago, went to trial on behalf of our client, United Technologies in an antitrust case against Chromalloy involving the repair of jet engines. The plaintiff sought damages in excess of $200 million. After a three-month trial in Bexar County, Texas, the jury returned a take-nothing verdict in favor of our client.
