612-877-5000 | Contact us

Extranet Login

BUSINESS LITIGATION

The business litigators at Moss & Barnett are skilled and well-versed in all manner of:

  • Business torts
  • Unfair competition
  • Trade secrets
  • Contract disputes
  • Fraud and misrepresentation
  • Securities
  • Corporate governance
  • Shareholder disputes

They have successfully resolved numerous such matters through negotiation, discovery, motions, trial and arbitration.

Business disputes often turn into "bet the company" cases – and, when the stakes are high, the litigators of Moss & Barnett are able to bring their talent, experience and teamwork to bear on their client’s bottom line: cost effective results. Our team of dedicated professionals, including attorneys and paralegals, is capable of handling the most complex and contentious matters.

Some of the areas in which we have assisted clients include:

  • Antitrust
  • Appeals
  • Banking
  • Breach of contract
  • Business torts
  • Commercial fraud
  • Construction disputes and defects
  • Contract disputes
  • Copyright and trademark
  • Corporate governance
  • Creditors remedies and bankruptcy
  • Employment disputes
  • Environmental disputes
  • Fraud and misrepresentation
  • Insurance coverage
  • Intellectual property
  • Lanham Act
  • Mechanic’s liens
  • Non-competition and non-solicitation clauses
  • Patents
  • Real estate
  • Securities and securities fraud
  • Shareholder disputes
  • Trade secrets
  • Unfair competition
  • Uniform Commercial Code
  • Utilities and telecommunications

Related

News Headlines


Case Summaries

Contracts

[07/02] Marilyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GBMH & Co.
In a trademark infringement action involving the enzyme-based dietary supplement Wobenzym, the District Court's preliminary injunction requiring Defendant to cease selling a dietary supplement is affirmed in part, where Defendant did not meet its burden to prove that Plaintiff ceased production of the supplement; but vacated in part, where a District Court must find a substantial risk of danger to the public or other special circumstances in order to enter an interlocutory order recalling a product in a trademark infringement case.

More...

Corporation & Enterprise Law

[05/29] People v. McLernon
Trial court order denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and dismiss his conviction for possession of a controlled substance for sale is reversed and remanded where the trial court improperly failed to consider the merits of defendant's motion for relief.

More...

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[07/01] Thomas v. Carnival Corp.
In a personal injury action involving a slip and fall aboard Defendant cruise line, the District Court's order granting Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is reversed where, under the parties' agreement, the dispute at issue must have some actual relation to the agreement to arbitrate, irrespective of what ship the claims originated from and when suit was brought.

More...

Tax Law

[06/30] Shaw v. People ex rel John Chiang
In an action related to California's state budgetary process, trial court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the Legislature's amendment of Revenue and Taxation Code sec. 7102 is invalid and thus most of the Legislatures appropriations of Public Transportation Account spillover gas tax revenue for the 2007-08 budget year are invalid because they do not serve a transportation planning or mass transportation purpose; and 2) the court properly rejected the Legislature's transfer of $409 million from the Public Transportation Account to the General Fund for past debt service payments on Proposition 108 bonds as not being consistent with the purposes of the Public Transportation Account.

More...

Evidence

[06/30] Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc.
In an employment termination action, trial court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) there was substantial evidence that defendant violated public policy in dismissing plaintiff; and 2) there was insufficient evidence of malice, fraud or oppression to support the award of punitive damages.

More...

Insurance Law

[07/02] Clarendon National Ins. Co. v. United Fire & Casualty Co.
In an action brought to determine the priority of coverage between certain insurance policies, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) defendant's demand for plaintiff to be involved in the defense of anticipated suits by injured parties is enough to create an actual controversy and give plaintiff the right to bring a declaratory judgment action to determine priority of coverage; and 2) the court did not err in determining that defendant's policy provided primary coverage for the accident and that its umbrella policy would also be triggered before the policy issued by plaintiff came into play.

More...


4800 WELLS FARGO CENTER | 90 South Seventh Street | Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129
P: 612-877-5000 F: 612-877-5999 Contact us