Ben E. Klein was hired mid-suit by a business brokerage firm in a breach of contract action. The suit was headed for trial within weeks of being hired. After Ben took the deposition of the defense expert in the case, the case went to mediation and was settled short of trial for $50,000.
Sigmon Klein represented a local business in a landlord – tenant dispute against the owner of a shopping center. The owner had allowed the property to fall into a state of such disrepair that the City of Greensboro condemned the property, rendered it uninhabitable for business purposes, and ordered that it be either repaired or demolished. The client was unable to conduct any business for months, resulting in loss of profits and valuable inventory. Sigmon Klein filed suit for the client in late 2016 and obtained a Default Judgment in the amount of $103,400.00 plus interest. Sigmon Klein has collected $74,863.56 from the landlord to date.
In the Summer of 2016, Grant Sigmon took a construction dispute to trial in Guilford County Superior Court. Due to a language barrier, much of the testimonial evidence was presented in Mandarin Chinese. The Jury found the individual and corporate defendants both liable for fraud. Following post-trial motions, the Court concluded the Defendants’ fraudulent acts constituted Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, and the Judge trebeled the compensatory damages award and entered Judgment for Sigmon’s clients in the amount of $201,000.00, plus interest.
The defendants appealed from the trial court’s decision, and Grant Sigmon was hired to handle the appeal. In November 2017, the North Carolina Court of Appeals published its opinion finding “no error” in the trial court’s decision.
Grant Sigmon was hired to represent a Nigerian gentleman in the North Carolina Court of Appeals in a dispute concerning the interaction between a prior settlement agreement and the title to a piece of real estate in Guilford County. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s Summary Judgment ruling in favor of Sigmon’s client. The other side’s petition to the North Carolina Supreme Court for discretionary review was denied, and the client’s Summary Judgment victory remains intact.
Grant Sigmon was hired to represent a local restaurant owner who had been sued in Federal Court by a west coast corporation in a dispute over broadcasting rights to a sporting event. Prior to Sigmon’s involvement, the Clerk of Court made Entry of Default against his client. Although Judgment by Default had not yet occurred, the Entry of Default was potentially disastrous as the applicable statutes provided for six-figure statutory damages. Sigmon successfully moved the Court to set aside the Entry of Default against his client, and the case settled confidentially shortly thereafter.
Ben E. Klein was hired to represent a businessman in an action for damages against several business and individual Defendants arising out of business partnerships in several sweepstakes stores in Virginia, South Carolina, and elsewhere in the southeast. After filing the action, Ben was able to achieve a default judgment for his client in the amount of $18,748,338.00 plus postjudgment interest.
Ben E. Klein represented a businessman who was defrauded by a purported investment group. After filing an action in Guilford County Superior Court, Ben was able to win a default judgment against the various Defendants for compensatory damages in the amount of $200,000 but which amount was trebled due to evidence of unfair and deceptive acts in the amount of $600,000.
These results are illustrative only, and do not represent all of the cases that the law firm has handled. These results should not be considered as any sort of guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of any other legal matter. Every case is different and must be evaluated separately. The law firm makes no representation that it can obtain in other cases the same or similar results. This information is not intended to establish, and consequently does not establish, an attorney-client relationship. E-mailing a request for information does not create an attorney-client relationship.