Commercial Litigation

Osborn Maledon's commercial litigation practice consistently is ranked as one of the best in Arizona by leading legal publications. The reason is that our commercial litigation attorneys not only handle a wide variety of commercial disputes, but also because they do so efficiently and with the overall best interests of the client in mind.

Osborn Maledon's commercial litigation attorneys are extremely skilled and experienced in handling commercial litigation, particularly complex commercial litigation. Indeed, Osborn Maledon has been described by one leading legal publication as the "go to place" for commercial litigation in Arizona. To achieve success for the client, our attorneys bring to bear a wide range of expertise, substantial litigation and trial experience, and an in-depth understanding of the client's needs and objectives. Whether the issue involves an alleged breach of contract, commercial torts, or other business disputes, or an issue arising from the parties' history of business dealings, our attorneys have the experience and legal expertise to resolve the matter effectively and efficiently.

In seeking to expeditiously and effectively achieve a client's ultimate objectives, our attorneys work closely with the client to develop a comprehensive litigation strategy that takes into consideration the economic issues at stake as well as the risks associated with the litigation. We recognize that each case is unique, and therefore calls for an approach and staffing that is right for that particular case. In some situations, early mediation efforts may be recommended, but in every case, our commercial litigation attorneys focus on achieving the most cost effective and favorable outcome for our clients.

For example, we have successfully:

• Defeated in arbitration a multi-million dollar claim by a supplier against a Fortune 50 manufacturer
• Represented a pharmaceutical company in a multi-million dollar dispute with a manufacturer of its products
• Represented a publicly traded bioscience company in a dispute arising under a stock purchase agreement
• Represented several large real estate developers in disputes relating to contract terms or other contractual interpretation issues
• Represented numerous large insurance companies in coverage disputes, including bad faith litigation
• Represented a national sports organization in several complicated endorsement contract disputes and other complex litigation matters
• Represented a multi-national company in connection with litigation related to the sale of a business

Whatever the nature of the commercial litigation may be, Osborn Maledon offers the most efficient, experienced, and skilled representation available.  

Associated Attorneys

Associated Announcements

• Arizona Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Cannabis Extracts Are Ok For Patients
• Osborn Maledon ranked 1st by prestigious Chambers guide
• Sturr Honored with Judge Learned Hand Award
• Osborn Maledon Named 2018 Benchmark Arizona Litigation Firm of the Year
• 14 Osborn Maledon Attorneys Named in Prestigious Chambers Guide, Firm Named 1st in 3 Practice Areas
• Osborn Maledon Named 2016 Benchmark Arizona Firm of the Year
• Osborn Maledon ranked in "Best Law Firms" 2015 by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®
• Osborn Maledon ranked in "Best Law Firms" 2014 by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®
• Osborn Maledon Litigators Ranked "Highly Recommended" By National Litigation Guide, Benchmark Litigation 2012

Associated Recognition

• Osborn Maledon Attorneys Named in Chambers Guide
• Osborn Maledon Practice Groups and Attorneys Ranked as Tops in Chambers Guide

Representative Cases

• In re Apollo Grp. Inc. Sec. Litig. (D. Ariz. 2011)
  
• Allen v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan, 698 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (D. Ariz. 2010)
  
• Weiss v. Amkor Technology, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 938 (D. Ariz. 2007)
  
• Crawford v. American Institute of Professional Careers, Inc., 934 F. Supp. 335 (D. Ariz. 1996)
  
• Rawlings v. Apodaca, et al., 151 Ariz. 149, 726 P.2d 565 (1986)
  (insurance bad faith)
• eMove Inc. v. SMD Software Inc., No. CV–10–02052–PHX–JRG, 2012 WL 1379063 (D. Ariz. March 6, 2012)
  
• eMove Inc. v. SMD Software Inc., No. CV–10–02052–PHX–JRG, 2012 WL 715278 (D. Ariz. April 20, 2012)
  
• eMove Inc. v. SMD Software Inc., No. CV–10–02052–PHX–JRG, 2012 WL 4856276 (D. Ariz. Oct. 11, 2012)
  Awarding almost $1 million in fees and costs in defense of Lanham Act case.
• Orthologic Corp., v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., No. CIV 01-0006-PHX-SRB, 2002 WL 1331735 (D. Ariz. Jan. 7, 2002)
  
• Rollin v. Frankel, 196 Ariz. 350, 996 P.2d 1254 (App. 2000)
  
• Springborn v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, Rural/Metro Corp., No. CIV-02-2183-PHX-JWS (D. Ariz. 2002)
  
• SP Syntax LLC v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., CV 2011-019071 (Maricopa County Superior Court June 19, 2012)
  
• Aerotec Int'l, Inc. v. Honeywell Int'l Inc., 4 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (D. Ariz. 2014), aff’d 836 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2016)
  (summary judgment in favor of defendant on all claims, including monopolization, exclusive dealing, tying, and price discrimination)
• Puppies 'N Love v. City of Phx., -- F. Supp. 2d --, 2015 WL 4532586 (D. Ariz., July 27, 2015)
  
• Toscano v. PGA TOUR, Inc., 201 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (E.D. Cal. 2002)
  
• AA & Saba Consultants, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc., CV 2012-003542 (Maricopa County Superior Court February 28, 2014 )
  Achieved a $3.3 million jury verdict against Taser International, Inc. for Taser’s breach of a distributorship agreement with its distributor in Brazil.