William A. Markham

• District of Columbia Bar Association, 1989
• California Bar Assocation, 1988
• San Diego County Bar Association

• Mr. Markham recently obtained an appellate reversal on nearly all grounds in complex commercial litigation that proceeded to a jury trial. During trial, the jury rendered verdicts in favor of our client on all claims and crossclaims, but the trial court set aside several of these verdicts, thereby relieving one individual defendant of any liability and tossing punitive damages that had been awarded against both individual defendants.  By this appeal, Mr. Markham obtained a reinstatement of the full judgment against both individual defendants, as well as a new trial to set the amount of punitive damages that these defendants must pay.  He also obtained a dismissal of the only cross-appeal made by any defendant. He also obtained an award of all costs on appeal. During this appeal, the appellate court invited the parties to submit supplemental briefs to address California's new legislation on the fiduciary duties that a member-manager owes to a limited liability company. Case Name: Wardak v. WLOW Partners, LLC (Cal. App. Ct., 4th App. Distr. 2022, Case No. G061606). The above appellate decision rendered on February 26, 2024, and case remanded to the trial court on April 29, 2024., 2024
• In a recent case, Mr. Markham obtained a fee award of $500,000 and statutory costs of $22,000 against one defendant, and he successfully opposed a motion for a fee award and costs made against our client by a second defendant. Case Name: Wardak v. WLOW Partners LLC (Cal. Sup. Ct., Orange County, Case No. 30-2015-00811563-CU-OR-CXC)., 2022
• In a dispute over a large debt secured by real property, Mr. Markham obtained a victory on summary judgment for our client, an individual. He thereby defeated substantial claims brought against him by a global bank that sought to seize and sell his valuable real estate to satisfy a large debt. Case Name: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Cho et al. (Cal. Sup. Ct., SD County, 37-2016-00045054-CU-OR-CTL)., 2018
• Mr. Markham served as lead counsel for a "ringleader" defendant in a sprawling litigation for trademark infringement and product counterfeiting. In this case, he developed and presented an affirmative defense that the holder of a misleading trademark cannot prosecute others for infringing it. The case settled on confidential terms. Case Name: Innovation Ventures LLC v. Pittsburgh Wholesale Grocers, Inc., N.D. Cal., 2012., 2012
• In an antitrust case, Mr. Markham served as lead appellate counsel and obtained an appellate reversal of a judgment rendered against our client by a federal district court. The case was then remanded to the federal district court for further proceedings, and it thereafter settled on confidential terms. Case Name: Curtin Maritime Corp. v. Santa Catalina Island Co. (9th Cir. 2019, Case No. 18–55338). , 2019
• Mr. Markham served as the lead trial attorney and then as the lead appellate attorney in an antitrust case brought by his client, the largest privately held manufacturer of precast concrete products in North America. The defendants were a subsidiary of the world's largest seller of construction materials and the largest telecommunications company in the United States. Mr. Markham filed these claims in federal district court for the Northern District of California. His antitrust challenge largely survived the defendants' motions to dismiss, as well as their first round of motions for summary judgment, but not their second round of motions for summary judgment three years after the case was filed. Mr. Markham's appeal from this judgment was denied by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In an apparent effort to avert liability, the defendants stopped using the business practice that had precipitated the suit very shortly after the suit was filed, so that Mr. Markham's client accomplished one of its principal objectives by this litigation.  In this case, Mr. Markham collaborated with a famous, highly regarded economist, Robert Hall, and he was opposed by one of the leading antitrust boutiques in the country (Kellogg, Hansen). Case Name: Jensen Enterprises, Inc. v. Oldcastle Precast, Inc., N.D. Cal., 2006, Case No. C-06-0247., 2010
• Mr. Markham developed the first, original antitrust challenge to 1-800 Contact's use of sham litigation and settlement agreements with rival sellers to suppress online advertising and steer online clients. He filed this case in federal district court in Northern California. It was later consolidated with several other cases and transferred to a federal district court in Utah. The consolidated cases led to publicly disclosed settlements with all defendants for a total amount of $40 million. Original Case: Stillings v. 1-800 Contacts (N.D. Cal., 2016, 3:16-cv-5400); Consolidated Cases: Thompson v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. (D. Utah, 2016, 2:16-cv-01257-TS)., 2019
• Mr. Markham served as the lead attorney for a publicly traded retailer of hardware in an antitrust case that it brought against the largest retailer of hardware in the United States. His antitrust challenge survived the lead defendant's arduous attempt to dismiss it on the pleadings. That effort led to two published decisions, the second of which was largely favorable for Mr. Markham's client. The case thereafter settled on confidential terms. Case Name: Orchard Supply Hardware LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc., N.D. Cal., 2012. Case No. 12-cv-6361)., 2014
• Mr. Markham was lead counsel for a leading healthcare staffing agency in its antitrust case against the largest healthcare staffing agency in the United States. To support this challenge, he developed and litigated various antitrust claims that largely survived the defendant's motion to dismiss but were later dismissed on summary judgment on grounds stated in a published decision. Mr. Markham then appealed from this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment in its own published decision. The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice intervened in this appeal to state its position on key points of antitrust law, which were the same as Mr. Markham's statement of these same points (which concerned no-poaching covenants and the law of ancillary restraints). Case Name: Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. v. AMN Healthcare, Inc., S.D. Cal., 2017, Case No. 3:17-cv-00205; Ninth Circuit, Case No. 20-55679)., 2021
• Mr. Markham served as lead trial attorney for a distributor of medical devices, which filed an antitrust suit in California state court against two leading manufacturers of these devices and their preferred distributor. The case largely survived the defendants' aggressive litigation of the pleadings, and in particular the trial court allowed Mr. Markham's client to maintain its claim for unlawful retail price maintenance as a per se violation of California's Cartwright Act, even though the U.S. Supreme Court had previously ruled that resale price maintenance could no longer be treated as a per se violation of a parallel federal law (section 1 of the Sherman Act). After the trial court ruled on this matter, the case settled on confidential terms. Case Name: SMRT LLC v. Resmed Corp., Cal. Sup. Ct., S.D. Cty., 2011. Case No. 37-2011-00087297). , 2012

• Dan-Dee Corporation
• Orchard Supply Hardware, LLC
• Curtin Maritime Corporation
• Aya Healthcare, Inc.
• Izusu Motors, Ltd., 2015
• Masimo Corporation
• Nichia Corporation (Japan) 

• Semi-Finalist for "Best Real Estate Litigator" in San Diego County, San Diego Daily Transcript, 2010
• Semi-Finalist for "Best Business Litigator” in San Diego County, San Diego Daily Transcript, 2012
• Semi-Finalist for "Best Business Litigator” in San Diego County, San Diego Daily Transcript, 2011
• Semi-Finalist for "Best Business Litigator” in San Diego County, San Diego Daily Transcript, 2007
• Named to list of San Diego's "Best Real Estate Attorneys", San Diego Metro Magazine, 2012
• Highest Possible Rating of 10.0, Avvo
• Semi-Finalist for "Best Intellectual Property Litigator" in San Diego County, San Diego Daily Transcript, 2015
• “Super Lawyer” for antitrust law, SuperLawyers.com and Super Lawyers Magazine, since 2013
• Named to list of San Diego's "Best Real Estate Attorneys", San Diego Metro Magazine, 2011
• Semi-Finalist for "Best Business Litigator” in San Diego County , San Diego Daily Transcript, 2006

• University of California, Santa Barbara, Honors: With Highest Honors, 1984

• This article explains the common-law doctrines of restraint of trade, the origins and early interpretation of federal antitrust law, and the modern doctrines on consumer welfare that have transformed the meaning, purpose, and practical effect of federal antitrust law. A prior version of this article was published as the lead article in The Journal of the Antitrust and Competition Law Section of the California Lawyers Association (Fall Issue, 2021)., Author, How the Consumer-Welfare Standard Transformed Classical Antitrust Law, 2021
• Author, An Overview Of Antitrust Law, 2010
• Author, Why Antitrust Matters, 2006
• Author, Foreclosure Law in California and Related Matters, 2010
• Author, An Overview of Partnerships and Limited Liability Companies, 2000
• Author, How To Litigate a Lawsuit, 2006
• Author, An Overview of Contract Law, 2002
• Author, Anatomy of a Lawsuit, 2007
• Author, Civil Litigation: Using a Referee to Resolve Complex Accounting Issues, 2006
• Lincoln Law School, Adjunct Professor, Constitutional Law
• Unlawful Price Discrimination: An Obscure, Occasionally Useful Antitrust Doctrine
• Making Sense of the Rules of Evidence
• Hastings Law School, Adjunct Professor, Legal Advocacy and Legal Writing

• Hardware Components
• Healthcare
• Infrastructure Projects
• Medical Devices
• Other Industries.
• Retail Sales
• Telecommunications

“Tireless litigator. Superb legal mind.”

“Bill is a phenomenal antitrust litigator who is passionate about his work. Bill will not stop until he solves the problem his clients have asked him to sole. I don't know any lawyer who is more thorough and thoughtful than Bill. ”

“Bill Markham is an outstanding specialized attorney. His attention to detail on complex matters is remarkable and has led to significant success in a difficult area of practice. He is also a terrific mentor, always willing to listen and lend a hand on legal issues as well as the personal issues that necessarily arise for attorneys in litigation practice.”