Skip to main content
Scott G Wolfe JR

Scott Wolfe’s Legal Cases

6 total

  • Renee Lambert v. Century 21 Richard Berry and Associates

    Practice Area:
    Contracts & Agreements
    Date:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Outcome:
    Non-Compete Agreement Invalid
    Description:
    Defendant Renee Lambert signed a non-compete agreement with her former employer, Century 21. After terminating the relationship, Century 21 brought this action against her to restrict her from competing as a real estate agent. I successfully argued on the Defendant's behalf to have the non-compete agreement declared legally null and void, based on the agreement being over broad. Our client represented herself pro se on appeal. The trial court decision was affirmed, and the appeal went in her favor.
  • Argence v. Box Opportunties, Inc., et al

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Outcome:
    Appeal Overturning Trial Court Decision
    Description:
    My client, Box Opportunities, Inc., had a default judgment taken against them in Orleans Parish, LA. The default judgment was confirmed before the company hired counsel. Immediately after hiring counsel, a Motion for New Trial was filed with the trial court, and after a hearing, the trial court denied the motion, and any subsequent appeals, as untimely. I took the timeliness question on appeal to the Louisiana 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and successfully argued for the reversal of the trial court's decision. The 4th Circuit was persuaded that that Motion for New Trial was timely because there was not enough evidence in the record to pinpoint an exact starting point for the motion for new trial period, and accordingly, that the Motion for New Trial was timely and should have been heard.
  • Koby Coulon v. Daystar Builders

    Practice Area:
    Construction & Development
    Date:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Outcome:
    Removal of Construction Lien
    Description:
    We successfully argued for the removal of a construction lien from property owned by our client, Koby Coulon. The lien was removed from the land records upon our petition because it had been improperly filed, as notice requirements under the Private Works Act had not been met by the Contractor.
  • Banner Property Management, Inc. v. David Louge, et al.

    Practice Area:
    Construction & Development
    Outcome:
    Judgment in favor of Plaintiff
    Description:
    The Plaintiff was a general contractor in the New Orleans area, who contracted with homeowners David and Shirl Louge after Hurricane Katrina to perform construction restoration services at their home. The agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant was made verbally. This matter went to trial, whereby the parties disputed the amount of construction work completed and the agreed upon contract price. Plaintiff successfully proved at trial that the contract was made according to its argued terms, and that it performed the amount of work suggested by its position.
  • Wolfe Law Group, L.L.C., et al. v. Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

    Practice Area:
    Constitutional
    Date:
    Aug 02, 2009
    Outcome:
    Louisiana Ad Rule 7.6 Unconstitutional
    Description:
    Louisiana promulgated new lawyer advertising regulations, and set them to take effect on October 1, 2009. Scott Wolfe Jr. and Wolfe Law Group, L.L.C. challenged the rules as they relate to Internet advertisements, and specifically challenged Rule 7.6(d) as being over broad and inapplicable to the realties of Internet communication. The United States Eastern District Court granted the plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment holding that Rule 7.6(d) was an unconstitutional limitation on attorney speech on the Internet.
  • Express Lien, Inc. v. National Association of Credit Management

    Practice Area:
    Copyright Infringement
    Date:
    Jun 03, 2014
    Outcome:
    Settled
    Description:
    My law firm represented the plaintiff in this federal case, wherein it alleged that the National Association of Credit Management had: (1) stolen its copyrighted materials and sold those materials to its members through its "Lien Navigator" product; and (2) stolen content from third parties and sold that content through its "Lien Navigator" product; and (3) used the stolen content and its "Lien Navigator" product to unfairly compete with the Plaintiff. The case proceeded for about 1.3 years, and was settled through mediation and settlement conferences.