Skip to main content
David Allan Gauntlett

David Gauntlett’s Legal Cases

15 total


  • American States Ins. Co. v. Hayes Specialties, Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Insurance
    Outcome:
    Successful Summary Judgment
    Description:
    Obtained insurance coverage for client in underlying Lanham Act/Unfair Competition claim.
  • COMSAT Corp. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.

    Practice Area:
    Insurance
    Outcome:
    Successfully obtained insurance coverage
    Description:
    Successfully prosecuted claim for insurance coverage in underlying antitrust/unfair competition action.
  • Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction

    Practice Area:
    Copyright Infringement
    Outcome:
    Successful Appeal
    Description:
    Successfully appealed from dismissal of complaint for contributory copyright infringement against the owners of a swap meet where pirated and illegally imported sound recordings were being sold.
  • JACO Environmental, Inc. v. American Int'l Spec. Lines Ins. Co., No. C09-0145JLR, 2010 WL 807441 (W.D. Wash. March 9, 2010)

    Practice Area:
    Antitrust & Trade Law
    Date:
    Mar 09, 2010
    Outcome:
    Successful Summary Judgment
    Description:
    The court found no issue of law to preclude a judicial finding in favor of the insured in its suit for attorneys' fees following adjudication of a duty to defend. As a breaching insurer, it was of no moment whether JACO was entitled to independent counsel under a policy issued by another insured, Truck Insurance Exchange ("Truck"), since this was irrelevant to JACO'S rights under the AISLIC policy. Id. at *3. The court also found that fees under Washington State Law incurred by coverage counsel pursuant to Olympic Steamship Co. were recoverable by Gauntlett & Associates as coverage counsel. The court requested briefing on several items to clarify points so that a final judgment could be entered. In order to fashion the mechanism by which appellate fees also owed by AISLIC were to be reimbursed was also left to further resolution.
  • Total Call Int'l, Inc. v. Peerless Ins. Co.,104 Cal. Rptr. 3d 319, 327 (Cal. Ct. App. (2d Dist.) 2010)

    Practice Area:
    Antitrust & Trade Law
    Date:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Outcome:
    Successful Appeal
    Description:
    The court's prior finding was thus unaffected when it concluded implicit disparagement based on allegations that E.piphany (Infor's predecessor) "falsely stated that it was the ‘only' producer of ‘all Java' and ‘fully J2EE' software solutions, which was an ‘important differentiator' between competing products, even though some competitors offered products with these exact features." In Total Call, the policyholder did not provide the service it promised in its advertisements, which by itself "carrie[d] no implication" that the one company's phone cards cost more or less than another's.
  • Basic Research, LLC adv. Mary Tompkins, No. Civ. S-08-244 LKK/DAD, 2008 WL 1808316 (U.S.D.C. (E.D. Cal.) April 22, 2008)

    Practice Area:
    Antitrust & Trade Law
    Date:
    Apr 22, 2008
    Outcome:
    Successful Summary Judgment
    Description:
    Class action by California purchasers alleging false advertising about Akävar, a weight-loss product, was filed in California state court. G&A successfully removed case to California federal court, defeated motion to remand case back to state court, and obtained an order transferring case to federal court in Utah, client's home state.
  • Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., No. B192829, 2007 WL 2955564, at *7 (Cal. Ct. App. (2d Dist.) Oct. 11, 2007)

    Practice Area:
    Antitrust & Trade Law
    Date:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Outcome:
    Successful Appeal
    Description:
    The allegations [in ¶¶ 28, 29 and 30 of the Adidas complaint] are not limited in time or by product line and potentially cover Skechers's advertising activities during the period covered by Hartford's policy. . . . Skechers also provided Hartford with a 1998-1999 catalog that advertised, during Hartford's policy period, allegedly infringing Skechers footwear described in the Adidas complaint.
  • Basic Research, LLC adv. Teachers for Truth in Advertising, No. 8395 (Ca. Superior Court, Mariposa County)

    Practice Area:
    Antitrust & Trade Law
    Date:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Outcome:
    Successful Summary Judgment
    Description:
    False advertising case only cognizable under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 transferred to Utah under forum non conveniens doctrine where no viable claims may be asserted by plaintiff who suffered no injury from alleged conduct
  • Hewlett Packard Co. v. ACE Property & Casualty Co., No. C 99-20207 JW, *4-5 (U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2003)

    Practice Area:
    Antitrust & Trade Law
    Date:
    Nov 23, 2003
    Outcome:
    Successful Summary Judgment
    Description:
    In the first post-Hameid case to address the meaning of "advertising," the court again denied ACE's Motion for Reconsideration, stating: "Ace's motion for reconsideration is premised on the California Supreme Court's decision in Hameid v. National Fire Ins., 31 Cal.4th 16 (2003). . . . In Hameid, the California Supreme Court clarified that for purposes of a comprehensive general liability policy, ‘advertising' means ‘widespread promotional activities usually directed to the public at large.' Id. at 24. The Hameid decision, however, does not conclusively negate coverage. The Hameid decision did not address the issue before this Court: whether a package insert in a product that is distributed and sold worldwide is ‘advertising.' Indeed, the Hameid decision expressly declined to address the question of ‘whether widespread promotional activities directed at specific market segments constitute advertising under the CGL policy.' Id. at 24, n. 3. Arguably, HP's package insert is widespread promotional activity directed at a specific market segment".
  • Lockwood Int'l, B.V. v. Volm Bag Company

    Practice Area:
    Antitrust & Trade Law
    Date:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Outcome:
    Successful Summary Judgment
    Description:
    Justices Posner, Flaum, and Manion issued an opinion reversing and remanding the decision of Judge Randa. The panel found that a liability insurer with an obligation to defend a third-party action against its policyholder was precluded from avoiding its defense obligation by paying the plaintiff in the third-party action to replead covered and potentially covered claims as non-covered claims. The Court of Appeal condemned the insurers' tactics in unequivocal terms: "We have difficulty imagining a more conspicuous betrayal of the insurer's fiduciary duty to its insured than for its lawyers to plot with the insured's adversary a repleading that will enable the adversary to maximize his recovery of uninsured damages from the insured while stripping the insured of its right to a defense by the insurance company."