Tag Archive | "litigation"

Probate & Trust Litigation – Aug. 22

Probate & Trust Litigation – Aug. 22

TOPICS:
• Planning in Anticipation of a Contest, Controversy, or if There is a Difficult Asset

• Closely Held Businesses in Probate: Enforcing Redemption Agreements of Deceased Shareholders

• Structuring & Obtaining Court Approval of Settlement Agreements Under IC 29-1-9 & IC 30-4-7

• Fiduciary & Attorney Conflicts in Trust & Estate Litigation

• Will & Trust Contests

• Enforcing Beneficiary Designations (Life Insurance, IRAs, etc.)

• Species of Probate Claims: Defense, Prosecution, & Preemptive Planning

• Trustee Protection Issues & Techniques

• Contested Guardianships

• Estates & Mediation

• Common Evidentiary Mistakes in Probate Litigation
____________________

FACULTY:
John A. Cremer – Chair
Cremer & Cremer, Indianapolis

Michael P. Bishop
Cohen Garelick & Glazier, Indianapolis

Jeffrey S. Dible
Frost Brown Todd LLC, Indianapolis

Gregg S. Gordon
Dale & Eke, PC, McCordsville

Jarrell B. Hammond
Lewis Wagner, LLP, Indianapolis

Brian C. Hewitt
Alerding Castor Hewitt LLP, Indianapolis

Jonathan E. Lamb
Cremer & Cremer, Indianapolis

Gregory L. Padgett
Padgett Law, Indianapolis

Rodney S. Retzner
Krieg DeVault LLP, Carmel

Curtis E. Shirley
The Law Office of Curtis E. Shirley, Indianapolis

Nathan S. J. Williams
Shambaugh Kast Beck & Williams, LLP, Fort Wayne

Robert W. York
Robert W. York & Associates, Indianapolis
____________________

PROBATE & TRUST LITIGATION
6 CLE / .5 E – Tuesday, August 22; 9:00 A.M. – 4:30 P.M.

LIVE IN-PERSON SEMINAR
– ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis

LIVE GROUP WEBCASTS
– May Oberfell Lorber, Mishawaka
– DeFur Voran, Muncie
– Ice Miller, Indianapolis

LIVE INDIVIDUAL WEBCAST
– From your home or office computer

VIDEO REPLAY SEMINARS
– Available after Live Seminar date

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in News0 Comments

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Venue in Northern District Not Improper Under “Substantial Part of the Events” Test

By: Paul B. Overhauser  Publisher: Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

Fort Wayne, Indiana – The Northern District of Indiana has denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue, citing the connection of the Northern District to the events underlying the litigation.

This Indiana trademark litigation, Family Express Corp. v. Square Donuts, Inc., was filed to resolve a dispute over the use of the words “Square Donuts” in connection with the sale of donuts by two different Indiana-based companies.

Defendant Square Donuts of Terre Haute, Indiana claims trademark rights to “Square Donuts” under federal and Indiana law. It currently sells its “Square Donuts” in bakeries located in southern and central Indiana, including locations in Terre Haute, Indianapolis, Bloomington, and Richmond.

Plaintiff Family Express of Valparaiso, Indiana operates convenience stores in northern Indiana and uses the term “Square Donuts” in conjunction with doughnut sales. Plaintiff states that both it and Defendant are expanding their respective businesses into new markets, with Defendant expanding to the north while Plaintiff expands to the south. Thus, territory in which both operate concurrently has become a possibility.

In 2006, Defendant sent a cease-and-desist letter to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and Defendant subsequently discussed the possibility of entering into a co-existence arrangement, but did reach an agreement.

This trademark lawsuit followed. Plaintiff asks the Indiana federal court to declare that its use of the term does not infringe on the trademark rights in “Square Donuts” asserted by Defendant. Plaintiff also asks the court to cancel Defendant’s existing Indiana and federal “Square Donuts” trademarks.

Trademark litigators for Defendant asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that it had been filed in an improper venue. In evaluating whether venue in the Northern District was permissible, the court first noted that, while it “must resolve all factual disputes and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor,” Plaintiff then bears the burden of establishing that venue is proper. It also noted that venue can be proper in more than one district.

The federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), provides that venue can exist in “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants reside [in the same state]” or “(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 

Plaintiff relied on subsection (b)(2), claiming that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the lawsuit took place in the Northern District of Indiana. To establish venue, Plaintiff pointed to the fact that Defendant’s cease-and-desist letter and other communications had been relayed to Plaintiff in the Northern District. At least some rulings by districts courts located within the Seventh Circuit have held that the requirements for venue “may be satisfied by a communication transmitted to or from the district in which the cause of action was filed, given a sufficient relationship between the communication and the cause of action.”

The Northern District of Indiana concluded that such communications, which would be a typical element of litigation under the Declaratory Judgment Act, would defeat the purpose of protecting a defendant from having to litigate “in the plaintiff’s home forum, without regard to the inconvenience to the defendant at having to defend an action in that forum or whether the defendant has engaged in substantial activities in that forum.”

Instead, the Indiana court considered the underlying substance of the dispute: “whether the Defendant’s Square Donuts trademark is valid and, if it is, whether the Plaintiff nevertheless has refrained from infringing on the trademark in connection with the sale of its Square Donuts.” The court concluded that, given the extent to which the claims and events at issue in the litigation took place in both the Northern and the Southern District of Indiana, venue was not improper in the Northern District of Indiana.

Practice Tip #1: If neither subsection (b)(1) nor (b)(2) of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 applies, a third subsection may be utilized. That subsection, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3), permits venue in “any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 

Practice Tip #2: An inquiry into proper venue for a lawsuit is different from one into personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction “goes to the court’s power to exercise control over a party,” while venue is “primarily a matter of choosing a convenient forum.”

The case is assigned to District Judge Theresa L. Springmann and Magistrate Judge John E. Martin in the Northern District of Indiana and assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00103-TLS-JEM.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

By: Paul B. Overhauser, Publisher, Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

Overhauser Law Offices, LLC provides intellectual property services including patents, trademarks, copyrights and infringement litigation. Whether you’re an entrepreneur launching your first invention or a corporation looking for a litigation specialist, we have the legal experience to meet your goals.

To learn more about how Overhauser Law Offices can help you, browse our website to meet our lawyers and peruse our practice areas.  Then contact us, and we’ll put our expert team to work for you.

© 2016

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Intellectual Property Blog0 Comments

Litigating Constitutional Rights: Section 1983 & Other Claims – Aug. 26

The complex area of Section 1983 litigation requires the advocates to be well informed and mindful of the shifting ground as the Supreme Court frequently changes the contours of this area of the law and in some instances completely eliminates a previous theory or claim that plaintiffs were pursuing.
This 1983 seminar of advanced litigation practice is intended to enhance everyone’s knowledge of this area of the law and to also encourage a mutual pursuit of the truth and a mutual respect for each person’s position whether it be the plaintiffs’ theories of recovery or the defendants’ defense as allowed under the law.

Topics Include:
*  Attorneys’ Fees under Section 1988
*  Overview of Monell claims
*  Intersection of Section 1983 & claims of employment discrimination
*  Interplay between notice of tort claim & criminal proceedings
    with focus on civil liability of law enforcement officers
*  Qualified immunity
_______________________________________________

FACULTY:
Betsy M. Isenberg – Chair
Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis
Scott L. Barnhart
Keffer Barnhart LLP, Indianapolis
Kenneth J. Falk
ACLU of Indiana, Indianapolis
Thomas M. Fisher
Office of the Indiana Attorney General, Indianapolis
Cory C. Voight
Coots, Henke & Wheeler, Carmel
Bradley L. Wilson
John H. Haskin & Associates, Indianapolis
_______________________________________________

6 CLE – Friday, August 26,  9:00 A.M. – 4:30 P.M.

Posted in Sale/Featured Items0 Comments

The Basics of Bankruptcy: 7-Part Vignettes Series, July – September

ICLEF Presents a no-frills, low cost, high caliber continuing legal education, The Basics of Bankruptcy: 7-Part Vignettes Series. Bringing you experienced attorneys and jurists to discuss seven specific Bankruptcy topics.

Now, at your convenience, in one and two-hour live “nuts and bolts” presentations, you may gather the latest information while gaining valuable insight in a variety of Bankruptcy practice areas…. All arranged for your advantage.
___________________________

SEMINARS:
Affects of Bankruptcy on Divorce
1 CLE – An On Demand Seminar From July 2016

Mysteries of the Means Test Revealed
2 CLE – Tuesday, July 26, 11:00 A.M. – 1:00 P.M.
Live In-Person: ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis
Live Group Webcast: Taft Law Office, Indianapolis
Live Individual Webcast: From your home or office computer

Ethics in Bankruptcy
1 CLE / 1 E – Tuesday, August 2, 12:15 P.M. – 1:15 P.M.
Live In-Person: ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis
Live Group Webcast: Ice Miller Law Office, Indianapolis
Live Individual Webcast: From your home or office computer

How to Avoid Common Mistakes in Bankruptcy
1 CLE – Tuesday, August 9, 12:15 P.M. – 1:15 P.M.
Live In-Person: ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis
Live Individual Webcast: From your home or office computer

Dealing with Student Loan Debt in Bankruptcy
1 CLE – Tuesday, August 16, 12:15 P.M. – 1:15 P.M.
Live In-Person: ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis
Live Group Webcast: Ice Miller Law Office, Indianapolis
Live Individual Webcast: From your home or office computer

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Proceedings
2 CLE – Wednesday, August 31, 11:00 A.M. – 1:00 P.M.
Live In-Person: ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis
Live Individual Webcast: From your home or office computer

Litigation in Bankruptcy
1 CLE – Wednesday, September 14, 12:15 P.M. – 1:15 P.M.
Live In-Person: ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis
Live Individual Webcast: From your home or office computer
___________________________

FACULTY:
Mark S. Zuckerberg – Series Chair
Bankruptcy Law Office of Mark S. Zuckerberg, P.C., Indianapolis, IN

Honorable Jeffrey J. Graham
United States Bankruptcy Court, Indianapolis, IN
Seminars: Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Proceedings & How to Avoid Common Mistakes in Bankruptcy

Michael J. Hebenstreit
Whitham Hebenstreit & Zubek, LLP, Indianapolis, IN
Seminar: Affects of Bankruptcy on Divorce

Joseph F. McGonigal or a Representative from the Office of the United States Trustee
Office of the United States Trustee, Indianapolis, IN
Seminars: Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Proceedings, Ethics in Bankruptcy & How to Avoid Common Mistakes in Bankruptcy

Ronald J. Moore or a Representative from the Office of the United States Trustee
Assistant United States Trustee, Office of the United States Trustee, Indianapolis, IN
Seminar: Mysteries of the Means Test Revealed

Sally J. O’Connor
Bankruptcy Law Office of Mark S. Zuckerberg, P.C., Indianapolis, IN
Seminar: Dealing with Student Loan Debt in Bankruptcy

James E. Rossow, Jr.
Rubin & Levin, P.C., Indianapolis, IN
Seminar: Litigation in Bankruptcy

Gregory K. Silver
Attorney and Trustee, Indianapolis, IN
Seminar: Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Proceedings

Stacy M. Wissel
Chapter 7 Trustee, Decker, IN
Seminar: Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Proceedings

 

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianpolis, IN

Posted in Highlighted Seminars0 Comments