Wade H. Griffin, III - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
          activities of the defendants that resulted in the “demise” of               
          petitioner’s and HGTG’s Toyota dealership.  Likewise, the 13                
          counts allege injuries and damages that are commercial in nature,           
          and, although some of the counts sound in tort as the cause of              
          action, no claim of mental stress or depression is set forth in             
          the 13 counts.                                                              
               Subsequent to the complaint’s being filed, Toyota Motor                
          Sales, U.S.A., Inc., and Toyota Motor Credit Corp. (the                     
          defendants) argued in HGTG’s bankruptcy proceeding that Goodman             
          and Kilborn could not represent both petitioner’s and HGTG’s                
          interests, and the attorneys elected to represent petitioner.               
          The defendants also moved to dismiss petitioner from the case on            
          the grounds that he was not a party to the dealership agreement             
          and that the alleged injuries were to the corporation and not               
          petitioner.  In those motions and related documents, the                    
          defendants pointed out that the complaint focused on commercial             
          harm to the corporate entity and that no claim appeared to have             
          been made with respect to petitioner.  The defendants’ motion was           
          referred to a magistrate judge, who issued a report and                     
          recommendation that set forth a proposed denial of the                      
          defendants’ motion, and the report was adopted by a U.S. District           
          Court Judge.  The report did not address the merits of the cause            
          of action but contained the conclusion that it was premature for            
          a court to decide whether petitioner had standing.  The report              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011