Source: https://srclaw.com/our-team/cynthia-a-ricketts/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:33:28+00:00

Document:
Cynthia A. Ricketts is one of the co-founding partners of Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP. Cindy is a lifelong resident of Phoenix, Arizona, and is admitted in the State of Arizona.
Prior to founding Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP, Cindy was the most senior woman partner in the Phoenix office of DLA Piper LLP (US), the largest global law firm. She co-founded DLA’s Phoenix office in 2007 and served as that office’s hiring partner and pro bono coordinator.
Cindy has extensive experience in a variety of complex consumer and employment class action defense and commercial litigation matters. She has served as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous matters involving trade secrets, breach of non-compete and anti-solicitation agreements, unfair competition, employment discrimination, wrongful termination, consumer and employer class action defense, director and officer liability, fraud, racketeering, securities fraud, failed thrifts, breach of contract, breach of warranty, product liability, receiverships, construction disputes, homeowner association disputes, copyright infringement, Internet disputes, and business valuation disputes, and in matters involving the Satellite Home Viewer Act, the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, the Automated Clearing House (ACH) rules and regulations, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.
Her experience also includes participation in trial teams in complex commercial and tort litigation matters involving multiple parties and multiple districts. She has substantial motion and appeal practice, arbitration, and injunctive relief experience and a significant number of jury and bench trials in which she has first chaired.
Cindy’s Internet-related litigation includes litigation against anonymous John Doe speakers, litigation brought for comments made on Internet blogs and websites, subpoenas and discovery of and from Internet service providers (ISPs), and defense of electronic payment systems and processors. She has significant experience regarding the publication and distribution of defamatory and confidential material on the Internet and the misuse of protected and licensed trademarks on the Internet.
Cindy has been lead counsel on several arbitration matters and has been an active participant in court-sponsored mediations. She has drafted mediation agreements and arbitration clauses and alternative dispute resolution provisions for contracts. She has also served as a court-appointed arbitrator in several matters.
Cindy is a recognized NITA instructor who has taught both trial and deposition skills. She attends and participates in a number of women’s network associations and events. She has spoken often at seminars and authored articles appearing in local publications. Cindy serves as an adjunct professor at Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law teaching the “Technology in the Courtroom” course.
Cindy was also recently quoted in an article in The National Law Review entitled “Victory in New Mexico Voter Registration Case: New Mexico Settles Lawsuit, Agrees to Offer Voter Registration to Public Assistance Clients,” regarding a pro bono case with which she was involved.
WineStyles, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC (District Court for the District of Arizona). Client: GoDaddy.com, LLC. Plaintiff WineStyles, Inc. filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Go Daddy had breached its Universal Terms of Service Agreement for purportedly promising and then failing to provide “privacy” for free in perpetuity on domain names it registered with Go Daddy, claiming in excess of $25 million. WineStyles alleged claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. Go Daddy’s motion to dismiss was granted and therefore a walk-away settlement was negotiated with WineStyles.
Higgins, et al. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC (District Court for the District of Arizona). Client: GoDaddy.com, LLC. Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit alleging Go Daddy had violated California recording statutes by purportedly failing to disclose to consumers during outbound calls that the call may be recorded. After successfully transferring the case from the District Court for the Central District of California to the Arizona District Court, Go Daddy filed a motion to dismiss challenging the applicability of California’s recording statutes to calls originating outside of California and also challenged the California recording statutes’ constitutionality. Following the filing of Go Daddy’s motion to dismiss, a highly favorable settlement was negotiated, resulting in the case’s dismissal.
Celia Valdez, et al. v. Mary Herrera, et al. (District Court for the District of New Mexico). Client: Plaintiffs. New Mexico Voter Registration matter against the New Mexico Secretary of State and the New Mexico Human Services Department for violations of the National Voting Registration Act. The District Court of New Mexico granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, which the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on appeal in a reported decision.
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Home, et al. (District Court for the District of Arizona). Client: Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”). Successfully represented the Federal National Mortgage Association in obtaining a TRO and a preliminary and permanent injunction against defendants who improperly and fraudulently registered the name “Federal National Mortgage Association” with the Arizona Secretary of State and used that fraudulent registration to execute and record Special Warranty Deeds to 25 separate pieces of Fannie Mae property, totaling in excess of $4 million. The Court also ordered the defendants to unwind the fraudulent transactions and enjoined them from further representing or holding themselves out as authorized representatives of Fannie Mae or using Fannie Mae’s name. Fannie Mae was also awarded all of its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting the matter.
Integrated Technology Corporation, et al. v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc., et al. (District Court for the District of Arizona). Client: Integrated Technology Corporation. Patent infringement matter that was successfully tried to a jury, resulting in a $15,475,482 verdict, which was the largest civil verdict in 2012. Cindy acted as local counsel.
CBS Broadcasting Inc., et al. v. EchoStar Communications Corporation, et al. (District Court for the Southern District of Florida). Client: EchoStar Communications Corporation and related entities. Plaintiffs claimed EchoStar provided distant network programming to customers in violation of the Copyright Act and the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act. Portion of case remains pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Portions of the case reported at 276 F. Supp. 2d 1237 (S.D. Fla. 2003); 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95258 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 20, 2006).
Robert E. Liss and Zoe Liss v. Exel Transportation Services, Inc. (District Court for the District of Arizona). Client: Exel Transportation Services, Inc. Former executive plaintiff claims company failed to pay him bonus compensation. Company claims former executive improperly used company’s confidential information, among other things. Trial held October 2007. Reported decision granting summary judgment in Exel’s favor on former executive’s treble damage claim at 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25323 (D. Ariz. 2007).
Piedmont Hawthorne Aviation, LLC v. Gary Coxe and Elite Flying and Management Services, Inc. Client: Piedmont Hawthorne Aviation, LLC. Action involved the posting and threatening to post per se defamatory comments on an Internet weblog and otherwise publishing per se defamatory comments. Case settled favorably for client.
Significant Education, Inc. v. Grand Canyon University Institute for Advanced Studies, (American Arbitration Association). Client: Significant Education, Inc. Significant Education, Inc. brought claims against Grand Canyon University Institute for Advanced Studies seeking to recover damages resulting from the dilution of its shares/financial interest as a result of fraud in the Asset Purchase Agreement between Significant Education, Inc. and Grand Canyon University Institute for Advanced Studies with respect to the sale of Grand Canyon University.
DIRECTV, Inc. et al v. Kelly Broadcasting Systems, Inc. (American Arbitration Association). Client: Kelly Broadcasting Systems. Action alleged a breach of contract in connection with a competitor’s acquisition of Kelly Broadcasting Systems. After three week arbitration, favorable award obtained for client.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.