Skip to main content
Cortland Christopher Putbrese

Cortland Putbrese’s Legal Cases

10 total

  • Income Tax School, Inc. v. Lopez

    Practice Area:
    Copyright Infringement
    Date:
    Aug 07, 2012
    Outcome:
    The federal court granted the defendants' motion, dismissed the action, and transferred it to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
    Description:
    Represented the defendants in a copyright infringement case pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Filed and argued a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff opposed the motion.
  • Workman v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Feb 17, 2000
    Outcome:
    The federal court granted summary judgment on plaintiffs' future loss of income claim.
    Description:
    Represented defendants in a personal injury action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, loss of future income. Moved for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' future loss of income claim.
  • In the Matter of Rave Cinemas, LLC

    Practice Area:
    Administrative Law
    Date:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Outcome:
    The administrative law judge dismissed the charges against the licensee, and the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board upheld the judge's decision.
    Description:
    The enforcement division of the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control ("ABC") brought charges against a corporate licensee, alleging the licensee violated certain alcoholic beverage control laws. I represented the licensee and defended it against the charges. I tried and won the case before an ABC administrative law judge.
  • Maricco v. Meco Corp.

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Sep 03, 2004
    Outcome:
    The federal court granted defendant's summary judgment motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. Court also granted in part defendant's motion to exclude plaintiff's expert.
    Description:
    Represented defendant in a products liability action pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Drafted and argued a motion for summary judgment and an accompanying motion in limine to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's expert.
  • Hinkle v. ABB Process Analytics, Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Class Action
    Date:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Outcome:
    The federal court granted defendant's motion and dismissed the case.
    Description:
    Represented a corporate defendant in an ERISA class action lawsuit filed in West Virginia state court. We removed the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Also filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.
  • Mullins v. Goins

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Nov 15, 2001
    Outcome:
    The federal court granted defendant's motion to dismiss. The court also denied plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that it had jurisdiction to decide the case. The case settled favorable to the client.
    Description:
    Represented a defendant automobile manufacturer in a complex products liability action filed in West Virginia state court. Defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Plaintiffs moved to remand. We opposed plaintiffs' motion and also moved to dismiss one of the plaintiffs.
  • State of West Virginia ex rel. One-Gateway Assocs., LLC v. Hon. Gary L. Johnson

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Dec 08, 2000
    Outcome:
    The supreme court of appeals granted the writ of prohibition, finding the state court erred as a matter of law in granting injunctive relief.
    Description:
    Represented a company that sought a writ of prohibition in the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals to prohibit the enforcement of a state court's order granting injunctive relief to a landowner.
  • SwimWays Corp. v. ZURU, Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Patent Infringement
    Date:
    Jul 18, 2014
    Outcome:
    After oral argument, Judge Mark Davis of the Norfolk Division entered summary judgment in the defendant’s favor and declared the plaintiffs’ patent invalid in a 71 page opinion. The judge also denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.
    Description:
    Represented an international company based in China that was named as a defendant in a multimillion-dollar patent infringement lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
  • SwimWays Corp. v. ZURU, Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Patent Infringement
    Date:
    Jun 06, 2014
    Outcome:
    The federal court granted the defendant's motion for a protective order, finding that the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition had to take place in China, where the defendant was located. The court also denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel.
    Description:
    Represented an international company based in China that was named as a defendant in a multimillion-dollar patent infringement lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Plaintiffs insisted that the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deposition of the defendant take place in Virginia. We filed a motion for protective order, seeking an order protecting the defendant from appearing in Virginia for its deposition. Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion to compel, requesting that the court compel the defendant to appear for its deposition in Virginia.
  • SwimWays Corp. v. ZURU, Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Patent Infringement
    Date:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Outcome:
    After hearing argument of counsel, the federal court granted the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiffs' expert's declaration.
    Description:
    Represented an international company based in China that was named as a defendant in a multimillion-dollar patent infringement lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. In support, the plaintiffs submitted a declaration by their infringement expert. We moved to strike the declaration.