![judge william s dato judge william s dato](http://www.smartvoter.org/2010/06/08/ca/sd/vote/salcido_d/salcido_d.jpg)
Guilford) Represented Plaintiff as lead counsel in a declaratory judgment action seeking declaration of non-infringement, unenforceability, and invalidity of US Patent No. SACV 08-00501 (US District Court, Central District of California Filed Judge Andrew J. Opposing counsel: Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP, John B. Read our opposition to plaintiff's application to disclose confidential material. Our firm substituted in for Solution Inc's former counsel.
![judge william s dato judge william s dato](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_uU-bmQkMdNM/S6AcVsa-mKI/AAAAAAAABjU/nJlryD6BiJU/s400/YB+WMI.jpg)
Pregerson) Represented Defendant in this patent infringement lawsuit involving network gateway devices.
![judge william s dato judge william s dato](https://i0.wp.com/fmff.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/MR-JOSEPH-CHONG-THAT-KHIONG.jpg)
CV10-0381AHM (US District Court, Central District of California Filed JanuJudge Dean D. That order prohibited the resort from generating noise that disturbed the couple’s “comfortable enjoyment” of their property.Nomadix, Inc. About two weeks ago, Strauss said, Dato amended his ruling to award the resort $48,276 in court costs.Īttorneys said the appeals process could take one to two years before a ruling is issued.Īs a result of Dato’s ruling, a temporary injunction issued by a different judge in December 2012 was lifted. Meanwhile, the resort will also seek to recover costs incurred in defending against the Mendez lawsuit, Strauss said. “We believe and expect (Dato’s) ruling will be affirmed on appeal,” Strauss said. Dato added that the couple’s remedy would be a request to county officials to enforce the regulation. “Any effect flowing from that narrow violation is minor and not substantial,” the judge wrote. Later in the ruling, Dato wrote that if a violation had occurred, it does not mean the resort is guilty of creating a nuisance. He said the argument regarding the violation of the Resort Services Regulation was a “late hail Mary” in the case “that doesn’t, in my view, provide grounds to reverse on appeal.” Steve Strauss, an attorney representing the resort, disagreed with Burkhardt. “One of the points of the appeal will be that the courts should not be looking the other way for these violations, that they have a duty to enforce the law,” Burkhardt said. system in a way that violates the country Resort Services Regulation.
#Judge william s dato trial
“The evidence at trial compels a conclusion that the public address system used by the Resort on the Croquet Lawn operates at a volume that allows words to be understood outside the boundaries of the Rancho Valencia property,” Dato wrote.īased on that finding, Burkhardt said, the judge should have issued an order prohibiting the resort from using the P.A. That regulation, the judge wrote, prohibits the use of a public address system at such volume that words can be understood outside the boundaries of the resort property. One key argument the couple will raise in the appeal is that in his ruling, Dato conceded the resort may have violated a county ordinance, called the Resort Services Regulation, Burkhardt said. Oral arguments will also be held before the appeals court rules. The notice precedes written briefs to be filed by the two sides, outlining their arguments on why the appeals court should or should not overturn Dato’s ruling, said Burkhardt. On April 3, the couple, through their attorney, Philip Burkhardt of Rancho Santa Fe, filed a notice of appeal, signaling their intent to request a review of the case by California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal. Dato wrote that the couple, Angel and Linda Mendez, had failed to prove that the resort had violated San Diego County’s noise ordinance, and he declined to issue a permanent injunction that would have barred the resort from holding certain types of events on its Croquet Lawn, which is about 600 feet from the Mendez property. A Rancho Santa Fe couple who sued the Rancho Valencia Resort in 2012, alleging that noise from the resort during weddings and other events constituted a public nuisance, plan to appeal a ruling issued in February by a San Diego Superior Court judge.