Choice, Inc. v. Graham
Filing date: , 6/7/2004
Plaintif(s): Choice, Inc. Of Texas D/B/A Causeway Medical Clinic,
Center Atorney(s): , Sandy Cohen
Co-Counel/Cooperating Attorneys: , Morrison & Foerster LLP: Jamie Levitt, J. Alexander Lawrence, Sarah Rosell (co-counsel), Bill Rittenberg (Local Counsel)
Summary: Beginning in 1993, William A. Graham co-opted the name of a well-known medical provider, and client of CRR, the Causeway Medical Clinic, and falsely advertised himself under that name as a provider of abortion referral services. , His aim in doing so was to derail women’s attempts to reach an abortion provider, with the hope of preventing them from obtaining abortions.
On June 7, 2004, CRR filed a lawsuit on behalf of the real Causeway Medical Clinic, accusing Graham of intentionally interfering with women’s efforts to exercise their constitutional right to obtain an abortion through false advertising, trademark infringement, fraud, and various forms of criminal and emotional manipulation.
In preparing the case, CRR gathered evidence demonstrating that Graham failed to provide the services he advertised, instead simply stringing women along for months with promises that he would connect them with doctors in private practice who would perform abortions for a bargain price. , Some of Graham’s victims testified that they were forced to carry their pregnancies to term against their wishes, jeopardizing their health, risking their education, and even endangering their lives. Others were able to have abortions but were significantly delayed. , In all cases, the women suffered extreme mental anguish either by not being able to exercise their right to choose or by riding an emotional rollercoaster, not knowing when or if they’d be able to terminate their pregnancies.
On August 4, 2004, we received a preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, shutting down Graham’s “services.” , In April 2006, the parties reached a settlement in the case, under which Graham agreed to issue a statement of apology and was permanently blocked from repeating the deceptive practices challenged in the case.