Skip to main content
William A Markham
Avvo
Pro

William Markham’s Legal Cases

15 total


  • Orchard Supply Hardware LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2012)

    Practice Area:
    Antitrust and trade law
    Date:
    Dec 14, 2012
    Outcome:
    Settled
    Description:
    Mr. Markham represented Plaintiff, a large retailer of hardware supplies. On its behalf he sued its direct competitor as well as two major suppliers of professional power tools. Plaintiff alleged that the suppliers had withheld necessary supplies from it, doing so at the behest of its direct rival, which was the largest hardware retailer in the United States.
  • Antitrust Amnesty -- Department of Justice, Antitrust

    Practice Area:
    Antitrust and trade law
    Date:
    Feb 02, 2005
    Outcome:
    Complete antitrust amnesty for client
    Description:
    Mr. Markham successfully negotiated and concluded a comprehensive antitrust amnesty agreement between his client and the US Department of Justice, Antitrust Division. Under this agreement, Mr. Markham’s client was absolved of all responsibility in a matter that eventually led to criminal convictions and major civil settlements against all of the other participants in a conspiracy to fix prices and allocate markets by territory.
  • Antitrust Investigation/Petrochemicals

    Practice Area:
    Antitrust and trade law
    Date:
    May 02, 1994
    Outcome:
    Successful negotiation/dismissal of all charges
    Description:
    Mr. Markham successfully defended a manufacturer of polypropylene products against potential claims of price-fixing and horizontal market allocation brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. This supplier was initially designated a “target” in an ongoing criminal investigation undertaken by the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division. Mr. Markham persuaded the DOJ to close its investigation without filing a complaint, and he persuaded would-be civil litigants not to seek relief against his client. In this case, Mr. Markham’s client obtained an unqualified and prompt release from any possible liability or obligation.
  • Collins v. Manufactured Structures International, Inc. (SD. Cty. Sup. Ct., Case No. GIC 880706).

    Practice Area:
    Commercial real estate
    Outcome:
    jury verdicts for plaintiff on all counts
    Description:
    Mr. Markham tried this case to a jury for fraud and related wrongs, doing so on behalf of the plaintiff. After a four-day trial, Mr. Markham obtained jury verdicts on four counts -- breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation. The jury also awarded damages for emotional distress to Mr. Markham’s client. After these verdicts were rendered, the trial court held a bench trial on the issue of alter-ego liability, finding that an individual defendant was personally responsible for the corporate defendant's liability to Mr. Markham's client.
  • Image 2000 Multimedia, Inc. v. Joseph Quin Family Trust (S.D. County, Case No. 37 2007 00062035 CU-BC-EC).

    Practice Area:
    Real estate
    Outcome:
    bench trial, verdict for clients on all counts
    Description:
    Mr. Markham tried this case before the trial judge, who granted judgment to his client on all grounds, deeming them to be the prevailing party in their claims against the Defendant, and deeming them to be the prevailing party in the Defendant’s cross-claims against them. This case concerned various disputes between a commercial tenant and a commercial landlord. Mr Markham represented the commercial tenants. The trial court found that the tenants were entitled to exercise their option to renew their lease for an additional five years, and moreover that they were in compliance with the complicated insurance provisions set forth in the commercial lease. The landlord took the opposite position on these points. The landlord has appealed from this judgment, and Mr. Markham is handling the appeal.
  • Joseph Quin Family Trust v. Image 2000 Multimedia, Inc. (S.D. County, Case No. 37 2008 00102257 CU-UD-EC).

    Practice Area:
    Real estate
    Outcome:
    Opposing party dismissed case
    Description:
    The commercial landlord in the above case brought another action against the same commercial tenants after losing the above-listed case on all grounds. After five months of arduous litigation, the landlord abruptly dropped the case, doing so one day before its representative had been ordered to answer further deposition questions about its motive for bringing the lawsuit.
  • Tamburo v. Lipari (SF. Sup. Ct., Case No. 312202

    Practice Area:
    Real estate
    Outcome:
    Petitioner's requests granted in entirety
    Description:
    In a judicial partition that proceeded to a final evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted Mr. Markham's client substantially all of the relief that she had requested, which included (1) a decree of partition and partition sale, (2) the entirety of all contested proceeds, (3) a removal of various liens at the other side’s sole expense; and (4) attorney's fees and costs. The property was worth approximately $900,000 at the time of the partition sale, and all of the client’s proceeds were recovered from the sale.
  • Tedcom International, Inc. v. Flamingo Industries, Inc. (Alameda Cty. Sup. Ct., 2000-074279

    Practice Area:
    Real estate
    Outcome:
    Stipulated judgment/dismissal
    Description:
    In a complicated commercial dispute in which Mr. Markham represented a supplier of mailbags against a distributor, the distributor dropped its cross-claims and gave a stipulated judgment to Mr. Markham's client on the day of the trial call. The stipulated judgment was for approximately $200,000, along with interest.
  • Oakland Unified School District v. Cheng (Alameda Cty. Sup. Ct., Case No. 2002-051449).

    Practice Area:
    Real estate
    Outcome:
    Successful settlement/eminent domain
    Description:
    In a complex eminent domain proceeding, Mr. Markham represented a large polypropylene factory located in Alameda County. The Oakland Unified School District condemned the property and made an initial offer of approximately $2.8 million. After a substantial litigation, the condemnor agreed to pay approximately $4.4 million for its taking.
  • City of Santa Cruz v. Lau (Santa Cruz Cty. Sup. Ct., Case No. CV 151983).

    Practice Area:
    Real estate
    Outcome:
    Successful settlement/eminent domain
    Description:
    In a complex, novel eminent domain proceeding, Mr. Markham represented the owner of commercial property that the City of Santa Cruz chose to condemn and take so that it could transfer ownership to a private developer. This case was brought after the US Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo case that such takings were permissible upon a proper showing. The condemnor's original offer was approximately $1.6 million, and its final stipulated award was worth approximately $3.1 million.