This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Insurance
Trademark Infringement
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Sprint Solutions Inc., Sprint Communications Company, L.P. v. Pacific Cellupage Inc., Yousef Saghian aka Joseph Saghian, Daniel Saghian, and Navid Davidian aka Navid Dawudian

Published: Apr. 30, 2016 | Result Date: Apr. 7, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:13-cv-07862-CAS-JCG Settlement –  $250,000

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

James B. Baldinger

Stacey K. Sutton

Valerie E. Alter
(Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP)

Fred R Puglisi
(Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP)


Defendant

Timothy J. Halloran
(Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney)

Kevin R. Lussier
(Cruser Mitchell Novitz Sanchez Gaston & Zimet LLP)

James F. Monagle
(Mullen Coughlin LLC)

Kim D. Ashley


Facts

Sprint Solutions Inc. and Sprint Communications Co. L.P. (collectively, Sprint) sued Pacific Cellupage Inc., Yousef Saghian aka Joseph Saghian, Daniel Saghian, and Navid Davidian aka Navid Dawudian, in connection with an allegedly unlawful scheme to profit from Sprint phones.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants allegedly perpetrated a fraudulent scheme by, among other things, acquiring subsidized Sprint phones through the use of "runners" and "credit mules" and then selling and re-selling those phones multiple times outside of the country, causing monetary and reputational damages to Sprint while allowing defendants to collect ill-gotten profits. Plaintiff asserted causes of action for unfair competition, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, tortious interference with contractual relationships, civil conspiracy, common law fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, trafficking in computer passwords, unauthorized access, unauthorized access with intent to defraud, federal trademark infringement, federal common law trademark infringement and false advertising, contributory trademark infringement, conversion, and unfair competition in violation of California Business & Professions Code.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants denied the allegations and asserted various affirmative defenses.

Result

The parties reached a $250,000 confidential settlement.


#106126

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390