Anthony Ostlund’s clients, an AmLaw 200 law firm and its former partner, were sued in federal court by an entity, purportedly created by the merger of a Mexican company and a Cyprian company, claiming to have been harmed in the context of a joint venture related to cross-border telecommunications.
The plaintiff alleged that its predecessor Mexican company was a client of the law firm and sought damages of more than $200 million for attorney malpractice. The case involved witnesses in numerous countries, documents in multiple languages, technical details regarding global telecommunications networks, and a complicated history of professional and personal relationships.
Anthony Ostlund Approach
Anthony Ostlund immediately identified a variety of flaws in plaintiff’s case, including that plaintiff could not prove they were the right party to bring any claims. Anthony Ostlund also found significant errors in plaintiff’s understanding and description of the telecommunications industry, as well as inconsistencies in plaintiff’s description of the history among the parties.
After more than a year of discovery – requiring translators, depositions in a variety of languages, and international law experts – Anthony Ostlund moved for summary judgment, arguing that discovery confirmed that the entity bringing the claims had no legal authority to do so. Anthony Ostlund also argued that the plaintiff did not have sufficient evidence to demonstrate an attorney-client relationship between the Mexican entity and Anthony Ostlund’s clients.
The federal district court for the District of Minnesota agreed. It concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing and did not have the right to bring the suit against Anthony Ostlund’s clients. The district court also determined that the plaintiff could not prove relationship between Anthony Ostlund’s clients and the plaintiff’s predecessor company based in Mexico.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision in 2021, reinforcing important precedent regarding standing to bring claims.
Azarax v. Wireless Communications Venture LLC et al.