For ten years, served as lead counsel for Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc. (VCENA) in dealer termination litigation in Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Texas. These cases followed a series of acquisitions of competing manufacturers by the European parent of VCENA, the Volvo Construction Equipment Group in Brussels, Belgium. As a result of these acquisitions, VCENA ended up with significant overlaps in its North American distribution. In some cases, VCENA found itself with as many as three dealers in a given geographic area. Pursuant to an ongoing program of “Volvoization,” the products of these acquired construction equipment manufacturers were — following the acquisitions — rebranded under the VOLVO® trademark. Pursuant to an ongoing program of dealer “rationalization,” what had previously been three separate dealer networks were consolidated into one network of Volvo Construction equipment dealers.
In federal and state courts across the country, we obtained favorable results on behalf of VCENA in the defense of such claims. These favorable results include the following:
Following a two-week trial, a state court jury in Corpus Christi, Texas rendered a unanimous defense verdict in less than 30 minutes. Nueces Farm Center, Inc. v. Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc., Trial Court Cause No. 00-4732-E (Dist. Ct. Nueces County, Texas 2000).
The federal court in Asheville, North Carolina denied various jurisdiction and venue challenges to VCENA’s declaratory judgment action involving multiple claims of dealers from multiple states alleging multiple statutory, tort, breach of contract, and quasi-contract. Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Nueces Farm Center, Inc., No. 1:01cv122-T, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17635 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 26, 2001); Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. AIS Construction Equipment Corp., 162 F. Supp. 2d 465, 470 (W.D.N.C. 2001); AIS Construction Equipment Corp. v. Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc., Court File No. 4-01 CV 00166 (SWW) (E.D. Ark. 2001). Thereafter the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted judgment on the pleadings dismissing all claims and counterclaims of all dealers. Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. CLM Equipment Co., 236 F. Supp. 2d 536, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25837 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 13, 2002). On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissals with the exception of one statutory claim asserted by one dealer — a claim for violation of the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act (the AFPA). Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc. v. CLM Equipment Co., 386 F.3d 581 (4th Cir. 2004). On remand, the jury found that the plaintiff had suffered no damages—notwithstanding a prior ruling that VCENA had violated the AFPA. Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. AIS Construction Equipment Corp., 416 F. Supp. 2d 404, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10020, Business Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 13,279 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2006). The district court thereafter refused to order a new trial or award attorneys’ fees as the Arkansas dealer sought. Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. CLM Equipment Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64626 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2006); Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. CLM Equipment Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75515 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2006). The Fourth Circuit affirmed this judgment on appeal. Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Clark Mach. Co., 510 F.3d 474 (4th Cir. 2007).
The federal court in Chicago granted summary judgment in favor of VCENA, dismissing multiple claims asserted by multiple dealers from the U.S. and Canada. Cromeens, Hollomon, Sibert, Inc. v. AB Volvo, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15482 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 25, 2001). On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissals with the exception of one statutory claim of one dealer. Cromeens, Hollomon, Sibert, Inc. v. AB Volvo, 349 F.376, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 22859 (7th Cir. Nov. 7, 2003), reh’g denied, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS (7th Cir. Dec. 17, 2003). In a subsequent appeal following trial in Chicago, the Seventh Circuit held that the scope of a “franchise” protected from termination without “good cause” is limited to the trademark that the dealer, distributor, or franchisee has been authorized to use. FMS, Inc. v. Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 4938 (7th Cir. March 4, 2009), rev’g 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19577 (N.D. Ill. March 20, 2007).
We defeated preliminary injunction motions brought by terminated Volvo Construction dealers in federal courts in Hartford, Connecticut and Kansas City, Kansas and by a Volvo Rents franchisee in Memphis, Tennessee. F&W Equipment Corp. v. Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc., Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 12,028 (D. Conn. March 7, 2001); Victor L. Phillips Co. v. Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc., Case No. 02-2144-JAR, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11297, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11354 (D. Kan. June 3, 2002); JEH, Inc. v. Volvo Construction Equipment Rents, Inc., Civ. Action No. 2:05cv2509 (W.D. Tenn. 2005).
In federal court in Trenton, New Jersey, we obtained pre-trial rulings limiting the damages recoverable for violation of the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act and dismissing ancillary non-statutory claims. Harter Equipment, Inc. v. Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc., Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 12,651 (D.N.J. Sept. 2 , 2003).