Facts City of Houston filed suit against client seeking an order stopping client from using residential property for commercial purposes and $1,000 per day of violations. Result Client agreed to an order directing client not to use property for commercial purposes, and City agreed to waive penalties. Amount Client Received n/a
Facts Our client was a dentist who was sued in small claims court. The plaintiff failed to file an expert report. Result The case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, with no payment by our client. Amount Client Received n/a
Facts Our clients were running a non-profit event, and they refused to allow a disreputable individual to have a booth to advertise to the guests. The individual filed suit, alleging breach of contract, defamation, and several other causes of action. However, no agreement existed, and the individual had no damages. His lawsuit followed a pattern of groundless lawsuits that he filed across the country. Result Not only was the lawsuit dismissed, but also, based on extensive research of other lawsuits, we requested and were granted an order that made the individual one of the eleven people who were declared to be vexatious litigants in Texas courts in 2013. Amount Client Received n/a
Facts Our client was sued for legal fees by his previous attorney. We showed that a previous dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant was dismissed “with prejudice” – meaning the lawsuit could not be re-filed. When we provided this information, the lawsuit was quickly dismissed. Result Dismissed by Plaintiff Amount Client Received n/a
Facts Our client is an apartment owner that was sued by a tenant claiming that his vehicle was wrongfully towed. We alleged statutory defenses based upon the fact that our client did not own the apartment complex at the time of the tow. Result The case was dismissed by agreement, with no payment by our client Amount Client Received n/a
Facts Our clients were nurses who were immigrating to the United States. They had agreed to work for a nursing placement agency. The contract contained a provision stating that they would have to pay liquidated damages in the event that they discontinued work for the agency. The amount that they were to be paid was well below market value. Our clients stopped working for the agency, and the agency sued them. Our clients counterclaimed on the basis that they were underpaid, and that such underpayment violated immigration laws. The case was tried to a jury, which found that neither party was liable to the other. As a result, our clients were not liable for the liquidated damages sought. Result Clients were not held liable for liquidated damages Amount Client Received n/a
Facts Our clients were two of three partners of a business. The third partner had an injury, and failed to return to the business after recovery. Prior to the injury, this partner had begun treating the other two partners poorly. When the injured partner threatened to harm the business, our clients shut out the third partner. The third partner sued, claiming oppressive treatment by our clients. The dispute settled, whereby our clients agreed to sell their interest to the third partner. However, the settlement funds could not come from the business account. After payment was made, our research established that the third partner had paid from the business’s funds. We challenged her purchase, and based upon the evidence we gathered, our clients got the business back – 100% in their name – in a pretrial settlement, with no payment to the third partner. Result The case was settled, where by our clients got the entire business with no payments made for the same. Amount Client Received The other party’s share of the business. Our clients paid $20,444.49 in attorney’s fees, and they estimate that the value of the share of business recovered was $100,000.