Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Rader Fishman v 1-800 Contacts Answer

Rader Fishman v 1-800 Contacts Answer

Ratings: (0)|Views: 178 |Likes:
Published by Eric Goldman

More info:

Published by: Eric Goldman on May 15, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/24/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Richard D. Burbidge (#0493)rburbidge@bmgtrial.com Jefferson W. Gross (#8339) jwgross@bmgtrial.comBURBIDGE MITCHELL & GROSS215 South State Street, Suite 920Salt Lake City, Utah 84111Telephone: (801) 355-6677Facsimile: (801) 355-2341
 Attorneys for Defendant 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER, PLLC,Plaintiff,v.`1-800 CONTACTS, INC.,Defendant.
))))))))))ANSWER
 
AND COUNTERCLAIM
Civil No. 2:10-cv-191JudgeMagistrate Judge Paul M. Warner1-800 CONTACTS, INC.,Counterclaimant,v.RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER, PLLC,Counterclaim Defendant.
))))))))))
Defendant 1-800 Contacts, Inc. (“1-800” or “Defendant”), by and through its counsel of record, and by and for itself only, responds to the Complaint of Plaintiff as follows:
Case 2:10-cv-00191-TS-DN Document 5 Filed 03/25/2010 Page 1 of 16
 
21.Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief to respond to paragraph 1 and, onsuch basis, denies paragraph 1.2.Defendant admits paragraphs 2 and 3.3.In response to paragraph 5 (no paragraph number 4 is found in the Complaint),Defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that Plaintiff represented Defendant in variouslitigation and non-litigation matters beginning in approximately January 2004 and concluding inor around August 2009. Defendant further admits that the terms for Plaintiff’s representation of Defendant in these matters were sometimes reduced to writing and sometimes were oral. Exceptas expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies paragraph 5.4.In response to paragraph 6, Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief torespond to the allegations contained therein and denies the same on such basis.5.In response to paragraph 7, Defendant admits that Plaintiff represented Defendantas its counsel for a period of approximately 5½ years and that numerous lawyers and staff associated with Plaintiff were involved in such legal representation. Except as expresslyadmitted herein, Defendant denies paragraph 7.6.In response to paragraph 8, Defendant admits that Bryan Pratt (“Pratt”) was anattorney associated with Plaintiff and who worked in Plaintiff’s offices in Salt Lake City.Defendant further admits that Pratt was involved with many of Defendant’s legal matters fromJanuary 2004 through August 2009. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant lackssufficient information or belief to respond to the allegations of paragraph 8 and denies the sameon such basis.
Case 2:10-cv-00191-TS-DN Document 5 Filed 03/25/2010 Page 2 of 16
 
37.In response to paragraph 9, Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief torespond to said paragraph and denies the same on such basis.8.In response to paragraph 10, Defendant admits that Pratt has had a businessrelationship with Mr. David Zeidner (“Zeidner”) an inside attorney for Defendant, and with JoeZeidner who is the brother of David Zeidner. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendantdenies paragraph 10.9.In response to paragraph 11, Defendant admits that the legal matters in whichPlaintiff represented Defendant often concerned patents, trademarks and trade secrets whichDefendant owned or was otherwise interested. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendantdenies paragraph 11.10.In response to paragraph 12, Defendant admits that Pratt was involved in many“non-litigation” matters in which Plaintiff represented Defendant and that, from time to time,other lawyers associated with Plaintiff in both Plaintiff’s Salt Lake City and Michigan officesworked on such matters. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies paragraph 12.11.In response to paragraph 13, Defendant admits that Pratt was not primarilyresponsible for litigation matters in which Plaintiff represented Defendant and that usuallyattorneys from Plaintiff’s Michigan office were primarily responsible for litigation matters inwhich Plaintiff represented Defendant. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant deniesparagraph 13.12.In response to paragraph 14, Defendant admits that on various occasions,Defendant, by and through its employees including Zeidner, expressed appreciation for legal
Case 2:10-cv-00191-TS-DN Document 5 Filed 03/25/2010 Page 3 of 16

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->