Hinsdale Limousine v. Hinsdale Coach Limousine
N/AOUTCOME: Money judgment in favor of client
This dispute surrounded competing limousine companies. My client and the Defendant started a limousine business together and my client paid all of the start-up costs. Ultimately, the parties could not ... get along, and after only approximately six months, the Defendant locked my client out of the business and changed the P.O. Box and bank accounts. He then incorporated under a different but similar name, obtained very similar telephone numbers, and used almost identical business cards and stationery in sending out "change of name" and "change of address" announcements to all of the then-existing clients and customers. I argued that the Defendant, through his conduct, wrongfully obtained a semi-established limousine business for free - without paying a single penny. I further argued that the Defendant's choice of a similar business name, his obtaining of similar phone numbers, his use of almost identical business cards and stationery down to the same logos and mottos, and the wording of the Defendant's announcements, were all calculated to fool, deceive and confuse customers and clients into thinking his was the same business they had dealt with in the past. Due to the lack of a track record in business together, a lack of evidence supporting profitability during that six month period, and a lack of evidence to support significant lost sales following the lock-out, my client was only awarded $7,961.79 in actual damages, representing out-of-pocket start up monies he contributed, less partial reimbursements received prior to the lockout. The Judge, nonetheless, found the Defendant's conduct egregious in locking out my client and purposefully setting out to fool, deceive and confuse the public into doing business with his new entity. As a result, she awarded an additional $50,000.00 in punitive damages, for a total judgment of $57,961.79, plus costs.
