Lan Kennedy-Davis was lead counsel for Plaintiff. This case involved anti-competitive practices by Defendants. Defendant Beats Electronics (Beats) sold headphones endorsed by a rapper Dr. Dre and manufactured by Defendant Monster Cable, Inc. (Monster) under the brand, “Beats by Dre.” Plaintiff manufactured, marketed and sold a similar line of headphones under a competing brand, “Soul by Ludacris.” Like Dr. Dre, Ludacris was also a professional rapper, actor and entertainer. Many other electronics manufacturers sought to enter the lucrative high-end headphones market as well. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants conspired to create barriers to entry into the headphones market. Defendants sent more than 100 cease and desist letters claiming that its design patent Pat. No. D552,077 was being infringed by almost every headphone manufacturer in the market, regardless of their headphone designs.

Defendants’ cease and desist letters included threats to rappers, manufacturers, re-sellers, retailers and distributors. Defendants’ made threats to companies at every level in the distribution and retailer chain resulting in a major barrier to entry and stifled competition. “Soul by Ludacris” filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment challenging Beats’ intellectual property rights, including the validity and enforceability of the ‘077 Patent. Defendants agreed that Plaintiff was correct in its claim and forever waived any claims against Plaintiff for infringement of any of its intellectual property. This case was litigated in United States District Court, Northern District of California.

Lan Kennedy-Davis was lead counsel for Plaintiff. This case involved trademark infringement and unfair competition by Defendant. Plaintiff manufactured and sold headphones under the brand “SOUL by Ludacris”. “SOUL” was a registered trademark with the USPTO owned by Plaintiff. Defendant sold headphones under the brand “SOL”, and caused confusion in the marketplace between “SOUL” and “SOL” headphones. Plaintiff filed an action against SOL for trademark infringement and sought an injunction against SOL. SOL agreed to change its branding to “SOL REPUBLIC” for clear distinction and to never use the word “SOL” standalone again. SOL agreed to make this change throughout all aspects of its business, including in its packaging, sales and marketing material. This case was litigated in United States District Court, Northern District of California.

Lan Kennedy-Davis represented Defendant Prysma Lending, a mortgage broker. This case arises from the pre-2008 real estate bubble in the United States, when mortgage loans were freely approved and granted. BankUnited, FSB was a lending institution that would purchase or fund loans that Prysma would originate, sell or assign. BankUnited filed for bankruptcy and FDIC, as an instrumentality of the United States of America, was appointed as receiver for the failed bank and was authorized to recover damages on BankUnited’s behalf. FDIC sued Prysma for the loss that BankUnited incurred as a result of eight mortgage loans that had defaulted for various reasons. FDIC sued Defendant for $2,130,550 plus interest and attorney’s fees and costs. The FDIC alleged that Defendant had breached its contracts between Defendant and BankUnited in eight instances. FDIC had filed hundreds of these actions and claimed that they would take every case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Lan Kennedy-Davis filed compelling defenses and a counterclaim against FDIC that gave them uncertainty and potential lengthy litigation, and FDIC gave Defendant a substantial discount on their claim to resolve the counterclaim. This case was litigated in the United States District Court, for the Southern District of Florida.

Lan Kennedy-Davis represented Defendant. Plaintiff is a multi-billion dollar multi-level marketing company. Mr. Khan is a resident of Malaysia and was a distributor for Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued Mr. Khan for $1.1 million in liquidated damages for breach of the business development contract. Lan Kennedy-Davis obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Defendant. This case was litigated in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida.

Lan Kennedy-Davis served as co-counsel on a team of attorneys who represented Appellee Mr. Barcus. In this appeal, Appellant Ms. Barley, individually and as personal representative of the estate of her deceased husband, appealed the dismissal of her motion to appoint a corporate trustee for the residuary trust created under her husband’s Last Will and Testament. She also appealed the order that appointed a substitute individual trustee for that trust. The 5th DCA reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case.

Lan Kennedy-Davis represented Defendant Greenhouse, who was the CEO of Skyemed-Orlando, Inc. This case was litigated in both state court and federal court. This cases involved a dispute between 50/50 shareholders of a pharmaceutical company initially valued between $15 million to $20 million. The parties both filed derivative actions against the other in state court and a trademark infringement action was filed by Plaintiff in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida. Plaintiff sought the Court’s appointment of a receiver for the corporation which Lan Kennedy-Davis successfully prevented. All of Plaintiff’s motions heard by the court was denied. Plaintiff dismissed the federal court case with prejudice. Plaintiff agreed to sell his shares to Defendant for a small fraction of the value of the business to settle the case.

Lan Kennedy-Davis was co-counsel for Plaintiff Trustee. This was a qui tam action brought on by a bankruptcy Debtor Westbrook. The Trustee took over as Plaintiff in this action. Westbrook was a former contractor for Navistar Defense, a government contractor. Navistar Defense invoiced and received payment from the United States government for goods and services that did not comply with the government’s mandatory specifications. The U.S. government had solicited contract bids for the manufacture of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to be used for the transport of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. government had awarded Navistar Defense a contract to produce MRAP vehicles. The contract provides that “all vehicles shall have a 686A tan, chemical agent resistant coating, non-reflective paint for the exterior per MIL-DTL-53072.” The application of the CARC system requires four steps: (1) cleaning, (2) pretreating, (3) priming, and (4) top coating. The primer used to complete the third step must be one of five epoxy primers included on the military’s Qualified Products List. It was the failure to apply epoxy primer to the MRAP vehicle parts that formed the basis of relator’s FCA claims. Notwithstanding its decision to forego application of the epoxy primer, Navistar Defense and its subcontractors submitted invoices with misleading statements that it had applied the epoxy primer, and received payments for the 7000 MRAP vehicles that Defendants delivered without application of the epoxy primer.

The case was dismissed with prejudice because the court concluded that Plaintiff had failed to allege with particularity any fraud on the part of Navistar Defense and failed to allege a False Claims Act claim based upon an express certification of compliance. Westbrook filed an appeal arguing that Trustee should not have been appointed as the exclusive relator in this case. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found in our favor that the district court did not abuse its discretion in substituting Trustee Spicer as the relator. Trustee also filed an appeal that the case should not have been dismissed with prejudice because FAR clause 52.246-2 rendered each delivery an express false statement that Navistar Defense had inspected the MRAP and confirmation that the MRAP conformed to contract requirements.

Lan Kennedy-Davis and co-counsel further argued that the delivery of the nonconforming MRAPs along with false invoices representing conformity to the contract was adequate to sustain a cause of action under FCA, based upon the implied federal certification theory. The Fifth Circuit denied our appeal and stated that “a false certification of compliance, without more, does not give rise to a false claim for payment unless payment is conditioned on compliance.” The Fifth Circuit was not persuaded that it should recognize the implied false certification theory as a basis for FCA liability. Subsequent to the dismissal of our client’s First Amended Complaint, on June 16, 2016, the United States Supreme Court, in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States, et al. ex rel. Escobar, et al. entered a ruling supporting our position. It held that the implied false certification theory can be a basis for False Claims Act liability when a defendant submitting a claim makes specific representations about the goods or services provided, but fails to disclose non-compliance with material statutory, regulatory or contractual requirements that make those representations misleading with respect to those goods and services. Our case was dismissed based in part on the Court’s refusal to recognize the implied false certification theory as a basis for FCA liability. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with our position but it was after our case had been concluded.

Lan Kennedy-Davis represented the Wife and was lead counsel in this dissolution of marriage action that crossed international waters and took an interesting turn, which involved a subsequent case of murder and intrigue that made international headlines. After trial, the Court awarded the Wife everything that she requested in the divorce. Refusing to acknowledge the Court’s Final Judgment, the Husband removed well over $1 million from the parties’ accounts and fled to Belize, where he had built a large house on a double ocean front lot next door to John McAfee (the inventor of the McAfee anti-virus software), even though Wife was also awarded this house in Belize. While hiding from the Court in Belize, he was allegedly murdered by John McAfee. The Court awarded Lan Kennedy-Davis and her co-counsel, the Husband’s 50-foot yacht in which he purchased for $175,000 and used to flee to Belize. The John McAfee murder story is broadcast on television, and the Husband’s estate has filed an action against John McAfee in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida.

This case was litigated in four courts: State Court, Probate Court, Bankruptcy Court and the Court of Appeals. Lan Kennedy-Davis represented Defendant in Probate Court and Bankruptcy Court. This action involves a family dispute. Plaintiff was a former judge and father who sued Defendant, his daughter, in state court for exploitation of a vulnerable adult under Florida Statute 415.102(7)(a)1 and (b). Plaintiff’s attorney was his son. After trial, the Court entered a final judgment in favor of the father and Defendant was ordered to pay more than $177K. Defendant then appealed and lost. While Lan Kennedy-Davis did not represent Defendant in the actions in State Court or the Court of Appeals, the Defendant hired her after losing the appeal. Defendant maintained that she had been a victim of injustice and that her father was not a vulnerable adult, and even if he was, her brother, an attorney and their father’s protégé, was in constant communication with their father and closely handled and monitored all of his affairs, and would never permit her or anyone to exploit their father. Ms. Mirabile felt that her attorney in the state court action had failed to conduct thorough discovery to support her contention. She was adamant that there was a “smoking gun.” The father later died, and the brother filed the will, which appointed him as the Personal Representative and was signed well after the state court had made a finding that their father was a vulnerable adult. Lan Kennedy-Davis filed a petition in bankruptcy and a petition for revocation of probate on behalf of Ms. Mirabile and engage in discovery. As anticipated, to defend the appointment of himself as the personal representative, her brother produced records that he had failed to produce in the state court action, which demonstrated that he closely handled all of his father’s affairs and argued that he should be the personal representative, and therein lied the smoking gun that Defendant sought. The Bankruptcy Court ordered the matter back to state court to address her father and brother’s misconduct. Defendant was relieved of any and all obligations to pay the final judgment

Lan Kennedy-Davis represented the Wife, Ms. Dang. The Wife was a Vietnamese immigrant Vietnamese man who was also United States citizen. After being married in Vietnam, her husband brought her to America under a spousal visa. The Husband physically abused her and threatened that he would have her deported if she told anyone. Just as he had promised, he filed for a divorce and sent a letter to USCIS to have her deported. Lan Kennedy-Davis represented the Wife in her dissolution of marriage action, including protecting her from further domestic violence. Lan petitioned USCIS and established a prima facie case under her I-360 application under the Violence Against Women Act. The Wife was granted protective status to stay in the United States and permitted to self-petition for permanent residency. USCIS provided the Wife with a Notice of Action of establishment of a prima facie case, which upon presentation entitled her to certain benefits under Section 501 of the IIRIRA, wherein she received benefits, including food stamps, Medicaid, temporary aid and other services.

Lan Kennedy-Davis represented Defendant in this civil action. Plaintiff sued Defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress and battery, and Defendant filed a counterclaim for abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Defendant was Plaintiff’s supervisor at Catalina Yachts, their place of employment. After a 5-day jury trial, the jury found in favor of Defendant on all counts in the primary case and counterclaim.

Lan Kennedy-Davis was lead counsel for Plaintiff in this adversary action in bankruptcy court against the Debtor, who sought a discharge in bankruptcy in an attempt to deny his creditors from collecting approximately $1.4 million in debts against him. After a three day bench trial, the Court found in favor of Plaintiff and Discharge of Debtor was denied under 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a)(2), 727(a)(4)(A), 727(a)(5), and 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).

Lan Kennedy-Davis represented Defendant in this action for negligence. Defendant is the landlord to CVS. Plaintiff is CVS’ employee who claims that the presence of mold and mildew from a leak in the building caused him to suffer significant harm. Lan Kennedy-Davis obtained an order of dismissal for Defendant. Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees against Plaintiff is pending.

Lan Kennedy-Davis represented Recoton Corporation, a named defendant in this action as in-house counsel. Plaintiff had filed hundreds of lawsuits nationwide, which alleged that their bar code patents were being infringed. They had pressured numerous defendants to pay approximately $1.5 billion in settlement at the time Recoton and approximately 90 members of the EIA were sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Lan Kennedy-Davis discovered another case wherein interested companies joined to file an action for declaratory judgment that the Lemelson patents were invalid, unenforceable and not infringed due to prosecution laches. In that case, the district court dismissed the laches claim and the case was then pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals. Lemelson sought injunctive relief when Recoton refused to pay $5 million for Lemelson’s claim for alleged past infringement and a continuing payment of royalties for future use. Lan Kennedy-Davis worked with outside counsel to obtain an order staying the case while the appeal was pending. In 2004, this issue came to a bench trial verdict in the leading case that the Lemelson patents were invalid and unenforceable. The other defendants, who had settled and agreed to pay Lemelson past and future royalties, were required to continue to pay because it was a voluntary contractual obligation, which Recoton was able to avoid due to the stay obtained and ultimately the dismissal of the case against Recoton.

Mateel filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco against approximately 100 members of EIA as co-defendants. Lan Kennedy-Davis represented Recoton Corporation, a named defendant in this action as in-house counsel. The lawsuit alleged that goods sold by the defendants failed to have adequate warnings with regard to potential exposure to lead in accordance with a California Health and Safety Code referred to as Proposition 65. In this case, a joint defense group was put together, which Lan and the general counsels for 4 other defendants led. The case was settled for a nuisance fee.