The John Marshall Courts Building. (Courtesy City of Richmond)
It’s the dispute that won’t quit.
Despite a judge’s ruling last month that dismissed the last remaining count in a nearly 2-year-old lawsuit between a local investment firm and a group of Virginia attorneys, it appears the legal battle isn’t yet over.
Richmond-based Davenport & Co. on Nov. 3 filed an objection to that ruling, showing it isn’t giving up its fight against local attorney Douglas Palais, Charlottesville attorney Frederick Payne and several law firms, all of whom it says wrongfully prosecuted the financial firm during a separate and previous lawsuit related to a $70 million bond offering for Fluvanna County in 2008.
The objection and potential continuation of the case could keep the flame lit on a legal dispute that dates back to at least 2011, when Fluvanna County, a rural municipality near Charlottesville, sued Davenport over that bond offering. The longtime downtown financial firm advised the county on the bonds.
That original case was dropped in late 2014 after years of back-and-forth, with the locality publicly apologizing for inaccuracies in the case.
Those inaccuracies were the ammunition for Davenport’s $15 million lawsuit filed in Richmond Circuit Court in late 2014 against Palais, Payne and their current and former law firms as it sought to place blame on their shoulders for the fallout from the original case.
Davenport’s suit claimed the attorneys knowingly made false claims against it while prosecuting the case in Fluvanna. It initially alleged a handful of counts including malicious prosecution, abuse of process and fraud and asked for a jury trial.
That complaint was eventually amended, only to see the defendants’ attorneys chip away at the counts to have all but one dismissed without ever making it to trial. The remaining count – abuse of process – was the subject of last month’s ruling, in which a judge sided with the defendant’s argument that the claim didn’t hold up to law.
Davenport was given the ability to object to the judge’s ruling, which it did in a 17-page filing on Nov. 3.
It argues the court erred in several ways, including that its interpretation of the definition of “process” ran contrary to precedent from the Supreme Court of Virginia and other Virginia state courts.
The company also argued the court erred in its ruling in April to drop Davenport’s claim of malicious prosecution. The crux of that argument is related to whether Davenport suffered “special injury” from the attorneys’ alleged conduct, which Davenport claims it did as a result of having to report the previous Fluvanna County lawsuit to its regulator, FINRA.
It points to a state supreme court opinion that states “if one maliciously makes use of the process of law, with intention to vex and distress another, he does it as his peril.”
Davenport has asked the court to reconsider its rulings and let the case go to trial on counts of abuse of process and malicious prosecution.
Messages left for Davenport and its attorneys at McGuireWoods were not returned by press time.
Dennis Quinn, an attorney with Carr Maloney, speaking on behalf of the defendants, said he was pleased with the judge’s ruling on the final count.
“We felt all along that the case against the defendant attorneys wasn’t supported by the evidence and thankfully the judge agreed with us,” Quinn said, adding he expects Davenport will appeal the ruling beyond their written objections.
The John Marshall Courts Building. (Courtesy City of Richmond)
It’s the dispute that won’t quit.
Despite a judge’s ruling last month that dismissed the last remaining count in a nearly 2-year-old lawsuit between a local investment firm and a group of Virginia attorneys, it appears the legal battle isn’t yet over.
Richmond-based Davenport & Co. on Nov. 3 filed an objection to that ruling, showing it isn’t giving up its fight against local attorney Douglas Palais, Charlottesville attorney Frederick Payne and several law firms, all of whom it says wrongfully prosecuted the financial firm during a separate and previous lawsuit related to a $70 million bond offering for Fluvanna County in 2008.
The objection and potential continuation of the case could keep the flame lit on a legal dispute that dates back to at least 2011, when Fluvanna County, a rural municipality near Charlottesville, sued Davenport over that bond offering. The longtime downtown financial firm advised the county on the bonds.
That original case was dropped in late 2014 after years of back-and-forth, with the locality publicly apologizing for inaccuracies in the case.
Those inaccuracies were the ammunition for Davenport’s $15 million lawsuit filed in Richmond Circuit Court in late 2014 against Palais, Payne and their current and former law firms as it sought to place blame on their shoulders for the fallout from the original case.
Davenport’s suit claimed the attorneys knowingly made false claims against it while prosecuting the case in Fluvanna. It initially alleged a handful of counts including malicious prosecution, abuse of process and fraud and asked for a jury trial.
That complaint was eventually amended, only to see the defendants’ attorneys chip away at the counts to have all but one dismissed without ever making it to trial. The remaining count – abuse of process – was the subject of last month’s ruling, in which a judge sided with the defendant’s argument that the claim didn’t hold up to law.
Davenport was given the ability to object to the judge’s ruling, which it did in a 17-page filing on Nov. 3.
It argues the court erred in several ways, including that its interpretation of the definition of “process” ran contrary to precedent from the Supreme Court of Virginia and other Virginia state courts.
The company also argued the court erred in its ruling in April to drop Davenport’s claim of malicious prosecution. The crux of that argument is related to whether Davenport suffered “special injury” from the attorneys’ alleged conduct, which Davenport claims it did as a result of having to report the previous Fluvanna County lawsuit to its regulator, FINRA.
It points to a state supreme court opinion that states “if one maliciously makes use of the process of law, with intention to vex and distress another, he does it as his peril.”
Davenport has asked the court to reconsider its rulings and let the case go to trial on counts of abuse of process and malicious prosecution.
Messages left for Davenport and its attorneys at McGuireWoods were not returned by press time.
Dennis Quinn, an attorney with Carr Maloney, speaking on behalf of the defendants, said he was pleased with the judge’s ruling on the final count.
“We felt all along that the case against the defendant attorneys wasn’t supported by the evidence and thankfully the judge agreed with us,” Quinn said, adding he expects Davenport will appeal the ruling beyond their written objections.