EchoStar Communications v. Gray
Mar 01, 2010OUTCOME: $20 million judgment and permanent injunction
techno piracy action
Dean Gresham's Legal Cases (9)
Dallas, TX
Personal injury Lawyer at Dallas, TX
Practice Areas: Personal Injury, Car Accidents ... +6 more
Defective Electric Blanket Class Action
Jun 01, 2008OUTCOME: Settlement after Certification of Class
According to the terms of the settlement, to receive a monetary payment a class member must first contact Sunbeam and request a pre-paid shipping and return form. Then the consumer has to disassemble t ... he bedding product and remove the C100 terminal block. The terminal block and proof of purchase of a new C104 bedding product must be returned to the claims administrator. Within 45 days, Sunbeam will send $10 to purchasers of C100 products prior to 1997 and $15 for products manufactured between 1998 and 2000. The deadline for making a claim is 130 days after the settlement's effective date. Class members alleging personal injury or property damages are not included in this settlement agreement. http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/localnews/2007/08/19/judge_wraps_up_blanket_suit_hudson_approves_temporary_settlement_in_class_action_case.php
Contreras v. KV Express LInes, Inc.
Oct 15, 2007OUTCOME: Successfully resolved
Tractor-trailer crosses median, strikes pickup, SUV Contreras v. KV Trucking, Inc., U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D. Tex., No. 4:04-cv-00398, Oct. 15, 2007. Esparza, 39, was traveling in a pickup truck with si ... x relatives and coworkers on a highway. A tractor-trailer driving in the opposite direction crossed the median and collided with the pickup, killing Esparza and four other occupants and injuring the remaining two. Click here to download the entire story in the Law Reporter.
Kellum v. Allied Van Lines
Sep 01, 2007OUTCOME: Successfully resolved
Kellum, 22, was driving on a highway when a tractor-trailer driven by Akauola unexpectedly swerved into her lane. Kellum took evasive action to avoid a collision with Akauola but was struck by another ... tractor-trailer driven by Popejoy. As a result of the accident, Kellum now suffers permanent brain injury.
Blagg v. Shale Tank Truck
Jun 15, 2007OUTCOME: Successfully resolved
Truck crosses centerline, crashes with vehicle in ditch. Blagg v. Shale Tank Truck, L.P. Blagg 33, was driving his pickup truck when a tanker truck driving in the opposite direction crossed the cen ... ter line. In an effort to avoid the other truck, Blagg drove his vehicle into a ditch on his side of the road, but the tanker did as well, and the two collided. Blagg died a few hours later of his injuries. A supervisor at an oilfield services company earning about $36,000 annually, Blagg’s estate claimed about $900,000 in estimated future lost wages. He is survived by his minor twin daughters. Click here to download the entire story in the Law Reporter.
Click Fraud Class Action Against Google & Yahoo!
Oct 01, 2006OUTCOME: On March 8, 2006, Google agreed to a $90 million s
Click fraud is a type of internet crime that occurs in pay per click online advertising when a person, automated script, or computer program imitates a legitimate user of a web browser clicking on an a ... d, for the purpose of generating a charge per click without having actual interest in the target of the ad's link. Click fraud is the subject of some controversy and increasing litigation due to the advertising networks being a key beneficiary of the fraud. Pay per click advertising or PPC advertising is an arrangement in which webmasters (operators of web sites), acting as publishers, display clickable links from advertisers, in exchange for a charge per click. As this industry evolved, a number of advertising networks developed which acted as middlemen between these two groups (publishers and advertisers). Each time a (believed to be) valid web user clicks on an ad, the advertiser pays the advertising network, who in turn pays the publisher a share of this money. This revenue sharing system is seen as an incentive for click fraud. The largest of the advertising networks, Google's AdWords/AdSense and Yahoo! Search Marketing, act in a dual role, since they are also publishers themselves (on their search engines). According to critics, this complex relationship may create a conflict of interest. For instance, Google loses money to undetected click fraud when it pays out to the publisher, but it makes more money when it collects fees from the advertiser. Because of the spread between what Google collects and what Google pays out, click fraud directly and invisibly profits Google. Disputes over the issue have resulted in a number of lawsuits. In one case, Google (acting as both an advertiser and advertising network) won a lawsuit against a Texas company called Auction Experts (acting as a publisher), which Google accused of paying people to click on ads that appeared on Auction Experts' site, costing advertisers $50,000[3]. Despite networks' efforts to stop it, publishers are suspicious of the motives of the advertising networks because the advertising network receives money for each click, even if it is fraudulent. In July 2005, Yahoo settled a class action lawsuit against it by plaintiffs alleging it did not do enough to prevent click fraud. Yahoo paid $4.5 million in legal bills for the plaintiffs, and agreed to settle advertiser claims dating back to 2004 [4]. In July 2006, Google settled a similar suit for $90 million [5][6]. On March 8, 2006, Google agreed to a $90 million settlement fund in the class action lawsuit filed by Lane's Gifts & Collectibles. [7]. The class action lawsuit was filed in Miller County, Arkansas by Dallas attorneys, Steve Malouf, Joel Fineberg, and Dean Gresham. [8]
Click Fraud Class Action Settled
N/AOUTCOME: $97 Million Class Settlement
Arkansas 'click fraud' class action settled 5/8/2008 10:44 AM By Michelle Massey, Texarkana Bureau TEXARKANA, Ark. - Miller County Circuit Court Judge Joe Griffin approved the final orde ... r for the last defendant's settlement in the Arkansas "click fraud" Class action. Throughout the course of the class action, the defendants placed over $97 million into various settlement funds, which included over $32 million in class counsel's fees. The original lawsuit was filed in February 2005 against defendants Yahoo, Overture Services Inc., Time Warner, America Online, Netscape Communications Corp., Ask Jeeves Inc., Go.com, Google, Lycos Inc., Looksmart Ltd. and Findwhat.com in the Miller County Circuit Court of Arkansas. The lawsuit accused the defendants, who either are Internet search engines or provide Web search capabilities, of overcharging for pay per click advertising (while on a website, clicking on a business' advertisement). The plaintiffs allege the defendants knowingly and fraudulently charged for advertising that was not generated by actual consumer clicks. The original complaint argued, "This is an industry-wide conspiracy in which all search engines have worked together to develop and/or create a market which allows for over-billing and/or overcharging of businesses and/or entities which purchase online pay per click advertising." Almost immediately after the filing of this case, defendants Google and Ask Jeeves removed the case to federal court, but U.S. District Judge Harry F. Barnes remanded the case. The defendants petitioned the remand to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals but the action was denied and the case again sent back to the Miller County Circuit Court. All of the defendants filed numerous motions to dismiss based on various procedural and substantive grounds. The court entered a protective order that allowed discovery to proceed. The defendants appealed the protective order to the Arkansas Court of Appeals and the Arkansas Supreme Court, but the court's protective order was approved. The plaintiffs' counsel bombarded the defendants with discovery requests, which for some defendants included over 70 interrogatories, and 70 requests for production of documents Google was the first defendant to agree to settlement with many objections and 556 people filing to be excluded. Google agreed to pay $60 million for advertising credits and $30 million for requested fees and attorney costs. Shortly after the Google final approval of settlement, defendants Yahoo!, Overture Services, America Online, Time Warner and Netscape Communications obtained an order of dismissal based on a settlement reached in a California federal case (Checkmate Strategic Group, Inc. v. Yahoo!, Inc. No. 2:05-cv-04588). Defendant Buena Vista Internet Group obtained dismissal without prejudice, as the plaintiffs believed the group was not connected to the click fraud. Defendant Looksmart Ltd. reached final approval of settlement in late February with a settlement fund of $2.54 million including over $585,000 for attorney fees. Defendant Ask Jeeves Inc. reached final settlement at the end of March with the creation of an $820,000 settlement fund including attorney fees of over $258,000. Defendants Lycos Inc. and Miva formerly known as Findwhat.com's final approval for settlement was approved at the end of April with the creation of a $3.96 million settlement fund, including over $1.2 million for attorney fees. The plaintiffs argue that although their "claims are valid, that their evidence is strong," settlement avoids the "need for protracted and costly litigation." The defendants continue to deny the plaintiffs' allegations. Class counsel includes Richard A. Adams of the law firm Patton Roberts, PLLC, Matt Keil of the law firm Keil and Goodson, P.A., R. Dean Gresham of Fineberg/Gresham, Jonathon Nockels of the Law Offices of Stephen F. Malouf, P.C., Lionel Z. Glancy of the law firm G
Parkcentral Global Class Action
N/AOUTCOME: Pending
Fineberg Gresham was recently appointed as Co-Lead Council in Case 3:09-cv-00765-M Southern Avenue Partners LP v. The Perot Family Trust. According to the Class Action Complaint, this case arises out o ... f a gross breach of fiduciary duty, numerous misrepresentations and cover-up by the Perot Family Trust, Hill Air Company I, L.L.C. d/b/a Perot Investments, Inc., Perot Management G.P., L.L.C. Perot G.P., Inc., Petrus Securities, L.P. Defendants. Defendants intentionally, recklessly and/or grossly neglected their professional and fiduciary duties to manage the capital invested by Plaintiff and other members of the proposed class (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffsâ€) in the Parkcentral Global Hub, Limited (“Global Fundâ€). At the time of the breaches, the Global Fund’s net asset value was approximately $2.5 billion. Further, Defendants misrepresented to investors that they would follow the Global Fund’s risk controls, and otherwise, prudently manage the Global Fund’s assets. Additionally, Defendants intentionally and/or recklessly disregarded the Global Fund’s risk controls, breached their fiduciary duties, and misrepresented the risk, liquidity, losses and leverage of the Global Fund to investors. Defendants’ misrepresentations were deliberate and by design with the sole purpose being to attract new investment capital and collect substantial management and incentive fees. As a result of Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty, the Global Fund imploded. The Global Fund’s net asset value went from over 2.5 billion to less than zero.
GoDaddy.com Class Action
N/AOUTCOME: Pending
1. This is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated persons or entities that registered Internet domain names through Defendant GoDaddy.co ... m, Inc. and paid a fee. 2. Defendants GoDaddy.com, Inc. and The Go Daddy Group, Inc. wrongfully used such domain names for their own enrichment, without the consent of Plaintiffs and the other members of the putative Class. 3. GoDaddy.com, Inc. is the world’s largest domain name registrar and is the flagship company of The Go Daddy Group, Inc. 4 GoDaddy.com, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Go Daddy Group, Inc. 5. Defendants GoDaddy.com, Inc. and The Go Daddy Group, Inc. engaged in a common scheme or practice of sharing revenue obtained through Defendants’ unlawful acts.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
