HouseCanary is firing back at accusations made by Amrock Inc. that it used fraud to obtain a massive judgment — suggesting Amrock might be behind stalking of HouseCanary employees.
On Friday Amrock, an affiliate of Quicken Loans Inc., issued a statement saying that HouseCanary’s $706.2 million verdict against it was obtained through fraud.
“Amrock today unveiled in its filings explosive new evidence that could have far-reaching implications for one of the largest intellectual property cases in United States history,” the statement said. “In pleadings filed in Bexar County District Court located in San Antonio, Texas, Amrock set forth new evidence that HouseCanary has been engaged in an extensive litigation fraud, in addition to its failing to deliver on the terms of the original contract with Amrock.”
After Mortgage Daily’s story was published, HouseCanary’s attorney, Ricardo G. Cedillo of Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza Inc., issued a written statement on behalf of the San Francisco-based company.
According to the statement, HouseCanary went to court because former and current employees were being stalked by unidentified private investigators. Some employees were even followed into parking garages.
“At the same time, Amrock and its agents have made numerous misstatements outside of court and to the media about the impact of the verdict and questioning HouseCanary’s technology,” Cedillo stated. “Amrock cannot change the record in this case. So they are resorting to statements and theories that they float outside the record to try and send a message about the case.”
Cedillo cited a fabricated story about whistleblowers to defend harassing HouseCanary employees.
“Any of Amrock allegations must be taken with extreme caution after the numerous attempts to mislead the jury and the court.”
No evidence was provided to the court of any whistleblower
on Friday, Cedillo said.
“What they have done is an abuse of the legal system, putting incompetent evidence in a court filing, and then neglecting to inform you in its press release that a standard hearsay objection to incompetent evidence was sustained by a court that understood the Texas Rules of Evidence and shut down their dog-and-pony show based on scurrilous claims.”