Opening Opening StatementStatement

Maglica v. MaglicaMaglica v. Maglica

United States Superior Court of United States Superior Court of AppealsAppeals

19941994

Opening Statement on Behalf Opening Statement on Behalf of the Plaintiff, Claire Halasz of the Plaintiff, Claire Halasz

(Maglica)(Maglica) May it please the court, your honor, ladies May it please the court, your honor, ladies

and gentlemen of the jury – the evidence and gentlemen of the jury – the evidence will show in the case that the Defendant, will show in the case that the Defendant, Anthony Maglica, intentionally kept Anthony Maglica, intentionally kept benefits from being conferred to our client, benefits from being conferred to our client, the Plaintiff, Claire Maglica. May it further the Plaintiff, Claire Maglica. May it further please the court that we will prove that please the court that we will prove that the retaining of these benefits without the retaining of these benefits without paying for it will result in unjust paying for it will result in unjust enrichment on behalf of our client, the enrichment on behalf of our client, the party receiving the benefit.party receiving the benefit.

Reason For Lawsuit Reason For Lawsuit Breach of contract on behalf of Breach of contract on behalf of

defendantdefendant Breach of partnership agreementBreach of partnership agreement

FraudFraud Breach of fiduciary duty and Breach of fiduciary duty and

quantum meruit quantum meruit

Photo of Anthony Maglica

Our FirmOur Firm

We will represent on We will represent on behalf of the Plaintiff, behalf of the Plaintiff,

Claire Halasz, aka, Claire Claire Halasz, aka, Claire Maglica. Maglica.

Undisputed Facts of the CaseUndisputed Facts of the Case The business, Mag Instruments, was solely The business, Mag Instruments, was solely

owned by the defendant, Anthony Maglica. owned by the defendant, Anthony Maglica. Defendant founded his own machine shop Defendant founded his own machine shop

business, Mag Instrument, in 1955.business, Mag Instrument, in 1955. Defendant divorced in 1971 from previous Defendant divorced in 1971 from previous

marriage and kept the business. Defendant marriage and kept the business. Defendant met Plaintiff, Claire Halasz that same year.met Plaintiff, Claire Halasz that same year.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never legally Plaintiff and Defendant were never legally married, but lived together and worked married, but lived together and worked

together and held themselves out as together and held themselves out as husband and wife.husband and wife.

Undisputed Facts of the Case Undisputed Facts of the Case (cont’d)(cont’d)

Plaintiff and defendant Plaintiff and defendant got on famously and got on famously and plaintiff began to use plaintiff began to use

the name Claire the name Claire Maglica. Maglica.

Plaintiff argued that Plaintiff argued that she and defendant had she and defendant had

a deal for a share of a deal for a share of equity in defendant’s equity in defendant’s

business.business. Plaintiff and defendant Plaintiff and defendant

worked together side worked together side by side building the by side building the

business.business.

Plaintiff and defendant Plaintiff and defendant were paid equal were paid equal salaries from the salaries from the business after its business after its

incorporation.incorporation. In 1978, business In 1978, business began to manufacture began to manufacture

flashlights and the flashlights and the business boomed.business boomed.

Undisputed Facts of the CaseUndisputed Facts of the Case (cont’d) (cont’d)

In 1974, business was incorporated and all In 1974, business was incorporated and all shares went into Anthony’s name.shares went into Anthony’s name.

After business boomed in 1978, it became After business boomed in 1978, it became worth hundreds of millions of dollars.worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

In 1992, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant In 1992, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant was trying to transfer stock to his children but was trying to transfer stock to his children but not her, and the couple separated in October.not her, and the couple separated in October.

In June of 1993, Plaintiff sued Defendant for In June of 1993, Plaintiff sued Defendant for $150 million, ½ of the interest of the business.$150 million, ½ of the interest of the business.

In 1994, the case went to trail.In 1994, the case went to trail.

Plaintiff’s TestimonyPlaintiff’s Testimony Claire argued that she and Claire argued that she and

Tony made a solemn and Tony made a solemn and permanent commitment to permanent commitment to each other on May 14, 1971, each other on May 14, 1971, which would become an which would become an anniversary date for them.anniversary date for them.

Claire argued that Tony Claire argued that Tony promised that what they promised that what they built together would be theirs built together would be theirs together in exchange for together in exchange for Claire living with Tony and Claire living with Tony and working for his company.working for his company.

Plaintiff argued that she and Plaintiff argued that she and Tony had a deal for a share Tony had a deal for a share of equity in his business.of equity in his business.

Claire knew and understood Claire knew and understood that by the law in California, that by the law in California, she and Tony were not legally she and Tony were not legally married, but Tony would tell married, but Tony would tell her that they were married her that they were married and that she was fully and that she was fully protected as his wife.protected as his wife.

Claire stated that Tony told Claire stated that Tony told her that if she signed the her that if she signed the Separate Property agreement, Separate Property agreement, that they would be formerly that they would be formerly married. She looked at the married. She looked at the document and signed it, but document and signed it, but did not receive a copy until did not receive a copy until 1992 and stated that she did 1992 and stated that she did not see the original document.not see the original document.

Plaintiff’s Testimony Plaintiff’s Testimony (cont’d)(cont’d)

Claire claimed to have Claire claimed to have made large financial made large financial contributions to Tony’s contributions to Tony’s business and that her business and that her ideas and hard work ideas and hard work caused business to caused business to boom.boom.

Claire claimed that no Claire claimed that no business decisions were business decisions were made without her made without her direction.direction.

Claire stated that Tony Claire stated that Tony gave her a ring she and gave her a ring she and Tony exchanged vows at Tony exchanged vows at a cathedral. a cathedral.

Claire stated that she Claire stated that she asked Tony how much of asked Tony how much of the business he was the business he was planning to give to his planning to give to his children and that he children and that he stated it was not her stated it was not her business and she was not business and she was not his wife, but an employee.his wife, but an employee.

In 1992 Claire discovered In 1992 Claire discovered that Anthony was trying that Anthony was trying to transfer stock to his to transfer stock to his children but not her, and children but not her, and the couple split up in the couple split up in October.October.

Defendant’s TestimonyDefendant’s Testimony

Tony claimed he never Tony claimed he never agreed to give Plaintiff a agreed to give Plaintiff a share of the business.share of the business.

Tony presented evidence Tony presented evidence that in 1977, he and Claire that in 1977, he and Claire signed a Separate Property signed a Separate Property agreement pointing out the agreement pointing out the statement “Claire statement “Claire understands she has no understands she has no claim against any assets of claim against any assets of Anthony Maglica”.Anthony Maglica”.

Tony claimed that he did Tony claimed that he did not tell Claire that after not tell Claire that after signing the Separation of signing the Separation of Property form that they Property form that they would be married.would be married.

Tony stated that Claire knew Tony stated that Claire knew that she had no interest in the that she had no interest in the company.company.

Tony stated that he trusted Tony stated that he trusted Claire with all of his Claire with all of his company’s business and could company’s business and could spend the rest of his life with spend the rest of his life with her.her.

Tony claimed that during the Tony claimed that during the trial was the first that he had trial was the first that he had ever heard about the ever heard about the ceremony and exchange of ceremony and exchange of vows at a cathedral.vows at a cathedral.

Tony claimed that he could Tony claimed that he could not recall ever stating that not recall ever stating that he and Claire were man he and Claire were man and wife.and wife.

Photo of Anthony Maglica

Other EvidenceOther Evidence1955

Mag Instruments founded by Anthony Maglica with $125.00

1974Mag Instruments incorporated

in California

1980’sMag Instruments boomed& became worth millions

1990’sMag Instruments made donations,contributions & received awards

1971Anthony Maglica meets

Claire Halasz

1982New Mag headquarters built in

Ontario, GA

1990’sJury awards Mag over $1.2 millionfor the Brinkmanns Corps. passing

off its flashlights as Mags

1979Mag flashlight introduced

1989Mag Instruments awarded $2.75

Million in damages for patent Infringement by Kassnar, Imports, Inc.

1993Claire files lawsuite against Tony for

breach of cotracts

ConclusionConclusion

Defendant pleaded that he was perfectly willing to Defendant pleaded that he was perfectly willing to provide for Claire and her family and that he provide for Claire and her family and that he deeply cared for Claire.deeply cared for Claire. Our client, Claire could recover for the value of Our client, Claire could recover for the value of

her services, but not for the benefit conferred on her services, but not for the benefit conferred on the business. In this case, the court will not the business. In this case, the court will not impose “a highly generous and extraordinary impose “a highly generous and extraordinary contract that the parties did not make.”contract that the parties did not make.”

In 1994, the case was tried and the jury returned a In 1994, the case was tried and the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $85 million, but the resulting verdict for plaintiff for $85 million, but the resulting judgment was reversed and case was later settled judgment was reversed and case was later settled for $29 million in favor of the Plaintiff.for $29 million in favor of the Plaintiff.

The Maglite