Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Trowbridge Sidoti LLP v. Taylor

United States District Court, C.D. California

March 6, 2018

TROWBRIDGE SIDOTI LLP, a California Limited Liability Partnership, Plaintiffs,
v.
KIM LISA TAYLOR, an individual; and SYNDICATION ATTORNEYS, PLLC, a Florida Professional Limited Liability Company, Defendants.

          JUDGMENT

          HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This action came before the above-titled Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict on February 23, 2018. (ECF No. 108.) The jury found:

         1. Do you find that Kim Taylor transferred her ownership in SYNDICATIONLAWYER.COM to the Trowbridge & Taylor partnership instead of simply allowing the partnership to use it?

X Yes. __No.

         If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #2. If you entered “NO” please proceed to question #8.

         2. Do you find that Trowbridge & Taylor transferred its ownership in SYNDICATIONLAWYER.COM to the Trowbridge Taylor Sidoti partnership?

X Yes. __No.

         If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #3. If you entered “NO” please proceed to question #8.

         3. Do you find that Plaintiff Trowbridge Sidoti LLP (“Plaintiff”) has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it owned, possessed or had the right to possess the SYNDICATIONLAWYER.COM domain?

X Yes. __No.

         If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #4. If you entered “NO”, please proceed to question #8.

         4. Do you find that the Plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Kim Taylor or Syndication Attorneys PLLC (“Defendants”) intentionally and substantially interfered with Trowbridge Sidoti's domain, SYNDICATIONLAWYER.COM?

X Yes. __No.

         If you entered “YES”, then proceed to question #5. If you entered “NO”, then proceed to question #8.

         5. Do you find that Plaintiff was harmed?

__Yes. X No.

         If you entered “YES”, proceed to question #6. If you entered “NO”, proceed to question #8.

         6. Do you find that Defendants' conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm to Plaintiff?

__Yes. __No.

         If you entered “YES, proceed to question #7. If you entered “NO”, proceed to question #8.

         7. How much has Plaintiff been damaged by Defendants' conduct?

__$

         8. Do you find Kim Taylor acquired ownership of the domain SYNDICATIONLAWYERS.COM when she registered it?

X Yes. __No.

         If you entered “YES”, proceed to question #10. If “NO”, proceed to question #9.

         9. Do you find that Kim Taylor acquired ownership of the domain SYNDICATIONLAWYERS.COM on behalf of Trowbridge & Taylor when she registered it?

__Yes. __No.

         If you entered “YES”, proceed to question #11. If “NO”, proceed to question #10.

         10. Do you find that Kim Taylor transferred her ownership in SYNDICATIONLAWYERS.COM to the Trowbridge & Taylor partnership instead of simply allowing the partnership to use it?

X Yes. __No.

         If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #11. If you entered “NO” please proceed to question #17.

         11. Do you find that Trowbridge & Taylor transferred its ownership in SYNIDCATIONLAWYERS.COM to the Trowbridge Taylor Sidoti partnership?

X Yes. __No.

         If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #12. If you entered “NO” please proceed to question #17.

         12. Do you find that Plaintiff Trowbridge Sidoti LLP (“Plaintiff”) has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it owned, possessed or had the right to possess the SYNDICATIONLAWYERS.COM domain?

X Yes. No.

         If you entered “YES”, please proceed to question #13. If you entered “NO”, please proceed to question #17.

         13. Do you find that the Plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Kim Taylor or Syndication Attorneys PLLC (“Defendants”) intentionally and substantially interfered ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.