LTL Attorneys Wins Motion to Compel Arbitration for client JP Morgan Chase

Los Angeles, CA – On May 23, 2023, the Superior Court granted LTL Attorneys’ motion to compel arbitration in the case of Archuleta vs JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA. After Theodore Archuleta, a former private client banker at JP Morgan Chase Bank, alleged wrongful termination, the bank moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement Archuleta signed during his employment at the bank.

The court affirmed LTL Attorneys’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the present action stating “a valid agreement exists between the parties, applies to Defendant, and the agreement is not unconscionable.”

LTL Attorneys were represented by Managing Partner, David Ammons, and the author of the winning papers, Patice Gore.

LTL Attorneys Bolsters its New York Commercial Litigation Practice with Senior Counsel Jared Ruocco

Jared is the third former Quinn Emanual attorney to join the New York office

LTL Attorneys is pleased to welcome Jared Ruocco as the firm continues to expand its footprint in New York. Jared brings with him years of experience in complex commercial litigation, having successfully litigated a diverse range of commercial matters including shareholder and corporate governance disputes, breach of fiduciary duty claims, “busted” M&A transactions, commercial contract disputes, fraud claims, business torts, and employment disputes.

He is the third lawyer to join LTL Attorneys’ New York office from Quinn Emanuel.

Jared represents companies, organizations, and individuals spanning a diverse mix of businesses and industries, including private equity, commercial real estate, pharmaceuticals, energy, manufacturing, healthcare, software, consumer product wholesale and distribution, and startups.

“We are thrilled to have Jared join our team,” said LTL Attorneys Managing Partner David Ammons. “His litigation experience and his track record of success in representing clients across a wide range of industries makes him an excellent addition to our team of top-tier litigators.”

In addition to his legal practice, Jared also served as a Lecturer in Law at Columbia Law School for several years where he taught courses related to litigation practice.

LTL Attorneys Secures Victory for City of Oakland & Oakland Police Department

On February 9, 2023, the Alameda County Superior Court (Honorable James R. Reilly) granted summary judgment to LTL Attorneys’ clients the City of Oakland and the Oakland Police Department.

In a legal battle waged against the City of Oakland and the Oakland Police Department (OPD) for nearly three years, former police officer Steven Fajardo and a group of truck drivers alleged the Commercial Enforcement Unit (“CEU”) of the OPD exceeded its authority by modifying trailer requirements for trucks traveling within the City of Oakland in 2016, permitting the use of “super-single trailers,” trucks that have two tires per axle instead of four.

The City of Oakland and the OPD sought dismissal of the Complaint, contending that the CEU’s adoption of the 2016 trailer requirements was lawful, in the first instance, and became a non-issue when former Interim Chief Manheimer ratified the policy change. This policy gave the OPD the power to enforce the newly implemented trailer requirements.

The court sided with the City defendants, finding that irrespective of whether the CEU had the ability or authority to modify the trailer requirements in 2016, the acting Police Chief unquestionably had the authority to ratify those changes—and she did.

The City of Oakland and the Oakland Police Department were represented by LTL Managing Partner, David Ammons, and Partner Paul Moskowitz.

LTL Attorneys Obtains Win for Client TP-Link In Multi-Million Dollar Trade Libel Suit

On November 3, 2022, the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Honorable Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.) issued an order granting summary judgment to LTL Attorneys’ client TP-Link, a distributor of networking products, in Thimes Solutions, Inc. v. TP-Link USA Corporation and Auction Brothers, Inc. d/b/a Amazzia.  The Court dismissed all claims against TP-Link.

The case involves a persistent issue for companies working to maintain quality control for the protection of consumers—stemming the unauthorized sales of their products.  Thimes was an unauthorized reseller of TP-Link products on Amazon.  Purchasers associate the TP-LINK® Mark with genuine TP-Link products that convey all the benefits of a product purchased from an authorized reseller.  Consumers who purchased TP-Link products from Thimes did not receive all the benefits of a product purchased from an authorized reseller.  

Thimes was eventually expelled from the Amazon Marketplace in August 2018 and claimed such expulsion was the result of TP-Link’s intellectual property complaints to Amazon.  Thimes sued to recover lost profits and punitive damages of over $20 million, asserting claims for trade libel, intentional interference with contract (Amazon Services Business Solutions Agreement), and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. In summary, the Court ruled that TP-Link’s intellectual property complaints against Thimes to Amazon contain “unactionable opinion statements” that were “made in the general context of an Amazon-hosted online form that invites complaints of commercial abuse.” Because TP-Link’s assertion of trademark infringement is not susceptible to being proved true or false, Thimes’ trade libel claim failed.  Thimes also failed to prove special damages to support its trade libel claim.

As for Thimes’ tort claims, the Court found that Thimes had failed to assert an independently wrongful act warranting dismissal of both claims.

TP-Link was represented by LTL Attorneys Prashanth Chennakesavan, Heather Auyang and LTL Managing Partner David Ammons

“Hopefully, this decision will provide companies further assistance to control product quality and protect consumers without fear of retaliatory litigation,” said Chennakesavan, a partner in the firm’s intellectual property and complex commercial litigation groups.

LTL obtains jury verdict on sexual harassment claim for client United Resources Information

May 9, 2022 – A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury rejected the sexual harassment and retaliation claims of a former employee of United Resources Information (“URI”) against the company and his former URI supervisor. Ted Lin was an Associate Creative Director for URI, a Los Angeles-based advertising agency. Lin alleged that his supervisor repeatedly touched him against his wishes, asked questions about he and his wife’s activities, and tried to discuss masturbation with him on one occasion. Lin claimed that when he complained about his supervisor’s behavior to URI’s President, its Human Resources Manager and others, rather than investigate his allegations, URI and the supervisor ultimately took him off of high-profile projects in retaliation for his claims leading to his forced resignation. He sought nearly $2.5 million in damages, not including punitive damages.

For its part, URI defended that no unwelcome touching or inappropriate conversations had occurred, as evidenced by Lin’s own contemporaneous Facebook chat messages with a close co-worker friend. Those messages revealed that Lin’s true grievances with his supervisor were over her managerial style and creative direction rather than any inappropriate sexual behavior to which there was not a single reference during that six-month period.

The jury’s verdict followed a day of deliberations. The trial included expert witness testimony produced by Plaintiff that the reason why he had failed to disclose some of the most salacious details of his supervisor’s purported conduct prior to trial was because of his repressed memory arising from the alleged abuse. “We couldn’t be happier for URI and Ms. Park who have had their reputations dragged through the mud for four years by these outrageously false claims,” said lead trial counsel David Ammons who tried the case with Senior Counsel Kevin Kelly. “I remain hopeful that those who are truly victims of workplace sexual harassment will be heard in the future,” said Ammons.

LTL Obtains Dismissal: Use of Fulfillment by Amazon is Insufficient to Establish Patent Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)

On April 6, 2022, the Central District of California dismissed a patent infringement suit brought by a California company Laltitude, LLC against an Ohio company Dreambuilder Toy, LLC. The suit accused Dreambuilder of infringing two of Latitude’s patents along with a state law claim for unfair competition.

LTL filed a motion to dismiss that the Central District is not the proper venue. The patent venue statute permits “[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). “[T]here are three general requirements to establishing that the defendant has a regular and established place of business: ‘(1) there must be a physical place in the district; (2) it must be a regular and established place of business; and (3) it must be the place of the defendant.’” In re Google, 949 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting In re Cray, 871 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).

There was no dispute that Dreambuilder does not reside in the Central District. Rather, Laltitude argued that the venue requirements were satisfied because of Dreambuilder’s relationship with Amazon and Amazon’s fulfillment centers in the district, specifically Dreambuilder’s use of Fulfillment by Amazon to store and ship its products meant that Dreambuilder had a regular and established place of business in the district.

In rejecting Laltitude’s argument, the Court reiterated against a broad reading of the patent venue statute. The Court found that while leased shelf space or rack space can serve as a regular and established place of business, Laltitude’s argument that Dreambuilder “leased shelf spaces in Amazon’s warehouse” that it “effectively possesses or controls” failed to constitute a “physical place in the district.” The Court focused on Amazon’s standard contract, which provides that Dreambuilder “has no right to control, inspect, or possess the space.” (emphasis in original).

“This decision represents a win for patent defendants that use online marketplaces like Amazon and helps prevent abuse by plaintiffs improperly attempting to expand the reach of the patent venue statute,” said LTL’s lead partner, Heather Auyang, representing Dreambuilder. “This case should have never been filed in the Central District and will hopefully deter plaintiffs from making similar arguments.”

Please contact Heather Auyang ( if you would like a copy of the decision. Senior Counsel Dat Nguyen assisted in Dreambuilder’s defense.

LTL Welcomes Partner Kate Cassidy

LTL Attorneys LLP (LTL) is pleased to announce that Kate Cassidy has joined the firm as a partner in its New York City office. During her 18-year career as a trial lawyer, Kate has focused on patent litigation and high stakes commercial litigation. She has represented companies ranging from startups through Fortune 100 companies from a variety of industries in courts throughout the country and in international and domestic arbitrations.

Before joining LTL, Kate practiced in the New York offices of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and Nixon Peabody LLP and as a foreign attorney in the Washington DC office of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP.

“Kate’s addition to the firm reflects LTL’s strategic growth in New York,” said Managing Partner David Ammons. “Kate’s extensive experience will also further strengthen our patent and commercial litigation team, as we make inroads in the New York City market in these practice areas.”

LTL Prevails In $150 Million Decade-Long International Dispute

On November 8, 2021, the California Court of Appeal sided with LTL Attorneys’ client DAS Corporation, headquartered in Korea, against Optional Capital, Inc., another Korean company, in the parties’ decade-long dispute over stolen funds. The result is a complete victory for LTL’s client in the litigation.

Optional sued DAS in 2011, claiming that funds DAS had received from a Swiss bank account maintained by a third-party fraudster belonged to Optional. The fraudster had stolen funds from DAS and Optional, but DAS was the first to collect on its debt. Unable to enforce its judgment against the fraudster, Optional sued DAS for conversion, fraudulent transfer, and receipt of stolen property, seeking over $150 million—the $12.6 million DAS received, an additional $25 million allegedly owed to Optional by the fraudster (claimed to be DAS’s co-conspirator), treble damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.

In a three-week 2019 trial conducted by LTL Partners Joe Tuffaha and Prashanth Chennakesavan, with assistance from associates David Crane and Kevin Kelly, a jury rejected most of Optional’s claims, but awarded Optional $2 million after finding that DAS knowingly received stolen funds. Both sides appealed. A unanimous panel agreed with LTL, reversed the judgment, and rejected Optional’s cross-appeal.

“We couldn’t be more gratified with the Court of Appeal’s decision. This was truly a slugfest in the trial court, and while we were disappointed that the jury did not find in DAS’ favor on all of the claims, we were confident that the Court of Appeal would correct that mistake” said LTL Managing Partner David Ammons. “Joe and Prashanth, and really the entire LTL team did an outstanding job in both the trial court and the court of appeal, and we could not be prouder to continue our unbeaten streak in the state and federal courts of appeal over the last four years,” said Ammons.

LTL Obtains $1.4 Million Jury Verdict for Client MSC.Software Corporation

On Friday, September 17, 2021, a Los Angeles jury awarded LTL client MSC.Software Corporation (“MSC”) $1.4 million in damages in MSC’s contract dispute with former client Heroux-Devtek, Inc. (“HDI”).

The three-day trial involved MSC’s claim that HDI, a Canadian aerospace supplier, breached the parties’ agreement when it did not destroy and continued to use software which it contractually committed to destroy. HDI’s continued use of the software permitted it to continue engineering operations for years when one of its servers became unavailable. HDI admitted that it breached the parties’ contract, but argued that MSC had suffered no damages because it never used more software than the contract permitted, and also argued that the suit was untimely. The eight-person federal jury rejected these defenses awarding MSC the full amount of its requested damages consisting of unpaid software license fees.

“We are grateful that the jurors were able to sift through the misdirection that was thrown them at trial and award compensation to MSC for the products and services HDI used for years without paying for them,” said lead trial counsel David Ammons.