EXAMPLES

| Customs Law | Surety Law | Transportation Law | General Commercial Litigation |

This page provides you with descriptions of a few of the lawsuits Mr. Daley has handled, either alone or in conjunction with other counsel.

Customs Law

Published Decisions

United States v. Yuchius Morality Co., Inc. and Intercargo Insurance Company - Court No. 96-02-00608, U.S. Court of International Trade, Slip Op. 02-124

In this lawsuit, we successfully argued that our client, Intercargo Insurance Company, was  entitled to reimbursement of amounts paid under its bond and to attorneys' fees and expense incurred in defense of the complaint and in prosecuting the cross-claim.  The Court also noted that our cross-examination of the government's witnesses revealed a "systemic shortcoming" in the government's case against Intercargo on the bond.  See Slip Op. 02-124 at p. 27-28.

United States v. So's USA Company, Inc. - Court No. 97-05-00922,  U.S. Court of International Trade, 1999 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 85

In this lawsuit, we successfully argued that U.S. Customs' assessment of "liquidated damages" for failure to redeliver merchandise was unlawful because the Notice to Redeliver was issued more than 30 days after the goods had been conditionally released to the importer.  This decision has led to the abandonment of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of liquidated damage cases by the government.

United States v. Rubinstein - Court No. 86-07-00935,  U.S. Court of International Trade, 62 F. Supp. 2d 1139; 1999 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 74; SLIP OP. 99-78, decided August 10, 1999

In this lawsuit, we successfully argued that the government's delay in prosecuting an action to recover lost duties was inexcusable, and that the action should therefore be dismissed.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. United States - Court No. 88-02-00094, U.S. Court of International Trade, 16 C.I.T. 663; 799 F. Supp. 120; 1992 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 131; Slip Op. 92-125,  decided August 3, 1992 (reversed in part, 6 F.3d 763; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 25037)

In the trial court, we successfully argued that U.S. Customs' extensions of the time to liquidate entries after the importer was out of business was unreasonable.  On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal reversed this result based upon the "presumption of regularity," which it said meant that the import specialist must be presumed to have communicated with the importer, even though there was no evidence whatsoever that any such communications occurred.  We settled the action upon remand.

Others

United States v. Washington International Surety Company (Surety for Likas) - United States Court of International Trade

This was a test case in which we contested U.S. Customs' assessment of "liquidated damages" for failure to redeliver merchandise based Notices to Redeliver which were issued more than 30 days after the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had issued "Notices of Refusal of Admission."   This case resulted in a settlement whereby the government agreed to accept approximately ten percent of the amount originally demanded, thereby saving importers and their sureties millions of dollars.

Frontier Insurance Company (Surety for California Classic) adv. U.S. Customs - U.S. Customs Petition

We successfully petitioned for relief from the assessment of over $1,000,000 in liquidated damages for the importer's failure to redeliver goods on the grounds that the Notice to Redeliver was untimely because the sole purpose for the 180 "conditional release" period established under 19 CFR 141.112(b) was to verify that the importer had accurately represented the country of origin of the goods, not that the visa which accompanied the goods was proper, which was the reason for issuance of the Notice to Redeliver. 

United States v. GYC Trading and Intercargo Insurance Company - United States Court of International Trade

The government sought to recover over $110,000 from an importer and its surety based upon a claim that the importer had improperly excluded certain expenses and payments in determining the transaction value of the imported goods. We were able to show that the government's auditors had no basis for including thousands of dollars in expenses in the transaction values for the merchandise. The case was settled for a payment of approximately $50,000.

Frontier Insurance Company v. (a Los Angeles Company and its owners) - Los Angeles County Superior Court

We recovered most of the amount paid to U.S. Customs by the surety from the individuals who owned the company which imported the goods and failed to redeliver them, despite the defendants' concerted efforts to conceal and transfer their assets.

Washington International Insurance v. Arthur Harutian, et al. (Pobeda Enterprises) - United States District Court for the Central District of California

We obtained a judgment and award of sanctions against three individuals who had imported goods under the name "Pobeda Enterprises," despite the defendants' denials of their involvement in the business.  The surety recovered all amounts paid to U.S. Customs plus a substantial portion of the attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the lawsuit.

Washington and Old Republic v. Multimatic - United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

We obtained a default judgment against the bond principal for approximately $200,000 in antidumping duties owed by the defendant.  We successfully resisted a motion to set aside the judgment and ultimately recovered all of the amounts owed.

Silver Reed America, Inc. v. Washington International Insurance Company - Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

We successfully resisted the importer's efforts to cancel a $1.4 million Letter of Credit issued for the benefit of Washington, a Customs bond surety, with respect to antidumping duties.  Thereafter, the surety was able to use the security to pay all of the amounts owed to U.S. Customs.

Far West Insurance Company v. (Los Angeles Company), et al. - U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (And Related Actions)

We represented two Customs bond sureties in an effort to recover amounts paid to U.S. Customs for liquidated duties assessed for failure to redeliver goods which had been refused entry into the United States.  Our pre-filing investigation revealed that the importer had been using a number of different names and social security numbers to import goods, including in one instance the name of deceased individual.  We brought an action for reimbursement, fraud and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") against the importer and its principal.  Although the action was hotly contested, we ultimately reached a settlement whereby the importer agreed to pay all of the amounts paid to U.S. Customs, plus most of the attorneys' fees and expense incurred in the proceeding.

Intercargo Insurance Company v. Anacomp, Inc. - United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Intercargo Insurance Company v. United States and Anacomp - United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware

On behalf of Intercargo, we brought a U.S. District Court action to compel Anacomp to pay approximately $3 million to reimburse U.S. Customs for amounts Anacomp had collected from for "drawback" claims it had filed, but which U.S. Customs later determined were improper.  Although Anacomp disputed liability to U.S. Customs, it finally agreed to deposit the funds into the District Court prior to filing a Chapter 11 petition in bankruptcy.

Subsequently, U.S. Customs demanded payment of approximately $3 million from Intercargo.  However, it refused a payment from the Court funds which was made in the name of both Intercargo and Anacomp would have forced it to try its dispute with Anacomp over the amount owed in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy court.

With the assistance of local (Delaware) bankruptcy counsel, we filed an action in the bankruptcy court to obtain a declaration that Intercargo was discharged from its obligations as a result of Customs' failure and refusal to accept the payment we had tendered.  The bankruptcy court entered a judgment in our favor.

After filing an appeal, U.S. Customs finally agreed to accept a second payment from the Court funds and to release Intercargo from further liability.

Amwest Surety Insurance Company v. Quast - Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara

Amwest, a sales tax bond surety, brought an action against two indemnitors for reimbursement of amounts paid to the State of California.  We recovered the full amount owed, including attorneys' fees and costs which substantially exceeded the amount paid to the State.

Thiti Lert Watana v. Minagratex Corp., et al.  - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 105 F. Supp. 2d 1077; 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10103; 2001 AMC 80,  July 13, 2000, decided  July 13, 2000

We successfully argued that the plaintiff's claim for the losses arising from alleged mishandling of a letter of credit against our Customs broker/receiving agent client was barred by the one year period of limitations of the bill of lading.

AT&T, Inc. v. Con-Way Southern Express - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 544, filed January 17, 1996

We successfully argued that the originating carrier (Conway) could not bring an action for contribution and indemnity against the interline carrier (Benton) based upon the loss of a portion of a shipment until after it had paid or agreed to liability for the loss.

We have successfully represented freight forwarders, Customs brokers, NVOCC's, truckers, and warehousemen in a multitude of lawsuits and threatened lawsuits arising from transportation transactions, Customs brokerage, and the conduct of their business.

The lawsuits included collection actions, the defense of actions arising from the loss of or damage to freight, the recovery of damages upon termination of a lease, an action for constructive eviction, an alleged overweight violation, and a lawsuit for additional worker's compensation allegedly owed.

We have also provided some of these clients with advice concerning their business forms, practices and procedures.

General Commercial Litigation

T. O'Connor & Sons Pty., Ltd. v. United Overlay Systems, et al. - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

This was an action for fraud against by a foreign purchaser against the sellers and shareholders of a U.S. Company, including our client, an individual.  According to the plaintiff, the seller and our client,  who was an employee of the seller immediately prior to the sale, had failed to disclose patent problems with the technology which was the subject of the acquisition.  We filed a Counterclaim for breach of a contract of employment. We negotiated a settlement whereby the complaint was dismissed and our client recovered a portion of the amount allegedly owed to him under his contract of employment.

FDIC v. (Several Individuals). - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (And Related Actions)

This action involved a complaint for an alleged violation of federal banking laws against the officers and directors of the failed National Bank of Carmel, including our client, an individual who served as president of the Bank. The FDIC sought to recover several million dollars in losses. The case was eventually settled after we filed (1) a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to compel the Bank's general liability insurance carrier to pay the costs of defense in the related State Court action and (2) a Motion to Dismiss an Interpleader action filed by the Bank's Directors and Officers Liability insurance carrier in the United States District on the grounds that the amount the carrier had deposited with the Court was insufficient. The latter motion was particularly important, since it threatened to force the D&O carrier to engage in the simultaneous defense of actions pending before several courts.  We settled the action through payments contributed by the insurance carriers.  Our client was not required to contribute to the settlement, and instead recovered certain amounts which had been "frozen" while the action was pending.

Bruntz v. Winchester Investments, et al. - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (And Related Actions)

This was an action by investors against a group of real estate brokers (including Mr. Daley's client) and their real estate counsel for alleged violation of federal securities laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") arising out of the purchase of two apartment complexes in Colorado. The lawsuits were settled in a three stage process. First, Mr. Daley negotiated tentative settlements with the lenders who were seeking deficiency judgments against the investors in the Colorado courts. Second, Mr. Daley negotiated agreements with the real estate brokers' CGL carrier and E&O carrier to fund the settlement. Third, Mr. Daley negotiated an agreement with the plaintiffs and the co-defendants which resulted in the dismissal of the lawsuits and the recovery by Mr. Daley's client of certain amounts he had loaned to the partnerships in an effort to save the investments.

Bank of the West v. (Several Individuals) - Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara

This was an for judicial foreclosure and recovery of a deficiency of more than $1,000,000 against the developers of a condominium complex in Santa Clara, California.  After a year of litigation, the Bank decided to accept the amount the developers had offered to pay at the inception of the litigation, which was approximately ten percent of the amount demanded.

CONTACT US

San Pedro Square, San Jose, California