Skip to main content
Auden Lewis Grumet
Avvo
Pro

Auden Grumet’s Legal Cases

25 total

  • Smith v. Snyder

    Practice Area:
    Car Accidents
    Date:
    Sep 09, 1999
    Outcome:
    Defense Verdict [I was counsel for defendant]
    Description:
    [As excerpted from Georgia Trial Reporter, Vol. 12, No. 2, Page 35 (2000), Case No. 97CV06719S1; Verdict Date: September 9, 1999]: Plaintiff and defendant were in their respective vehicles traveling west on highway 124 near its intersection with highway 78 in Snellville. Plaintiff had stopped at a stop sign and proceeded, then suddenly stopped again. Defendant rear-ended plaintiff when she stopped the second time. Plaintiff was involved in an accident prior to this, as well as two subsequent accidents. Plaintiff alleged that: (1) she was attempting to merge into traffic and was forced to stop a second time; (2) defendant failed to keep an assured, clear distance; and (3) she sustained significant injuries as a direct result of the accident. Defendant contended that: (1) she was presented with a sudden emergency when plaintiff stopped a second time; (2) plaintiff exaggerated her injuries; and (3) plaintiff's injuries were the result of another accident.
  • Norman v. Boswell

    Practice Area:
    Car Accidents
    Date:
    Jun 01, 1998
    Outcome:
    Defense Verdict [I was counsel for defendant]
    Description:
    [As excerpted from Georgia Trial Reporter, Vol. 10, No. 9, Page 16 (1998); Case No.: 96-VS-0117861-D; Verdict Date: June 1, 1998]: Plaintiff and defendant were traveling in the same direction on Old National Highway. Plaintiff was driving in the left lane and defendant was in the right lane. Plaintiff changed lanes suddenly, allegedly to avoid vehicles involved in an accident ahead in her lane of travel. Plaintiff and defendant collided. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was negligent in following too closely, resulting in the collision. Further, she suffered soft tissue back, left shoulder and chest injuries as a direct result of the accident. Defendant contended that plaintiff's negligence in changing lanes improperly was the proximate cause of the accident and that plaintiff was exaggerating the extent of her injuries. Jury Deliberations: 40 minutes.
  • McCurdy et al. v. Lexis-Nexis, Fulton County et al.

    Practice Area:
    Class Action
    Date:
    Jun 01, 2012
    Outcome:
    Ongoing
    Description:
    Federal Class Action challenging constitutionality/legality/propriety of mandatory electronic filing [E-Filing] scheme in Fulton County State and Superior Courts.
  • Grumet v. Equifax, Experian, TransUnion et al.

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Outcome:
    Confidential Settlement Agreement
    Description:
    Plaintiff alleged numerous violations of Truth in Lending, Fair Credit Reporting, Fair Credit Billing and related laws by "Big Three" Credit Reporting Agencies and credit card bank(s).
  • Rosenthal v. United Van Lines et al.

    Practice Area:
    Transportation
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2002
    Outcome:
    Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Denied
    Description:
    [Excerpted from West Case Headnote reported at 174 F.Supp.2d 1331 (USDC ND GA, 2001)]: Owners of household goods brought state court action against moving companies alleging various claims, including breach of contract, conversion, breach of bailment agreement, trespass, intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium. Owners' claims for emotional distress and loss of consortium against interstate moving companies were sufficiently separate and distinct from claims for injury involving damage to their household goods and moving companies' duties under bill of lading, and thus were not preempted by Carmack Amendment, which governed motor carriers' liability for loss or damage to goods shipped in interstate commerce; one owner asserted that he sought psychiatric treatment and suffered exacerbation of his medical condition as he was undergoing cancer treatment under relevant time period, and other owner asserted that owners' emotional distress resulted in unlawful loss of companionship between them.
  • Delta Electric, Inc. v. JEM Development et al.

    Practice Area:
    Construction & Development
    Outcome:
    Judgment for Plaintiff - for All Relief Sought
    Description:
    Materialman's Lien Foreclosure case [Gwinnett County Superior Court]. Default Judgment in favor of Plaintiff against all Defendants on all counts as a result of Defendants' failure to comply with the Discovery provisions of the Civil Practice Act. Damages hearing pending as of 11/02/09.
  • Delta Electric, Inc. v. Bottom of the Cup, et al.

    Practice Area:
    Construction & Development
    Outcome:
    Favorable Settlement
    Description:
    [Case was successfully transferred from Hall County Magistrate Court to Hall County Superior Court upon Plaintiff's motion]. Materialman/Construction Lien Foreclosure, with numerous unique and complicated facts, particularly due to the fact that that the entity that hired the general contractor to perform the work at issue was not the owner of the property, but rather was a tenant of the landlord/owner, and so had no more than a leasehold interest therein. And the scenario was even further complicated by the fact that the true legal owner was not the same person as the landlord; thus we argued that the latter actually had no ownership interest to convey, rendering the lease null/void (at least insofar as our interests were concerned). This case involved the application of the general rule that ordinarily a lien claimant may not encumber the fee simple interest of the subject property when a tenant orders improvements of which the landlord has no knowledge [or only limited involvement], and the rather narrow exceptions to this general rule. For instance, in this particular case, in addition to the questionable validity of the lease itself, the work at issue began prior to the scheduled commencement date of the lease, and by its own terms the lease provided for rental credit to be given to the tenant by the landlord in conjunction with the improvements and contemplated the scope of work to be undertaken as between the landlord and tenant, etc. And there is authority to support the conclusion that the existence of one or more of these factors will give rise to an exception to the general rule so as to render the full fee simple interest in the property subject to the Claim of Lien.
  • Ehrlich Electric, LLC v. Royal Crown Properties, LLC

    Practice Area:
    Construction & Development
    Date:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Outcome:
    Judgment in Plaintiff's Favor
    Description:
    Materialman/Construction Lien Foreclosure. Default Judgment issued in favor of Plaintiff for all liquidated amounts sought due to Defendant's failure to appear at trial.
  • Atkinson v. Merchants Employee Benefits, et al.

    Practice Area:
    Insurance
    Outcome:
    Pending
    Description:
    Complex insurance coverage/contract case.
  • Thalheim v. Evans & SPOOFEM.com, LLC

    Practice Area:
    Contracts & Agreements
    Date:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Outcome:
    Settlement, Favorable to Plaintiff
    Description:
    Breach of contract action. Plaintiff recovered the entire amount of the underlying claim for actual/liquidated damages.