Nuisance Value Settlements Eliminate Potential Class Action in FACTA and FCRA Actions Against Grocery Store Clients in the Chicagoland Area

Steve Johnson was retained to represent a substantial number of local grocery stores from various chains that were alleged to have violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act in potential class actions.  Through the knowledge gained as part of a national group of attorneys defending these class action claims and by performing a detailed analysis of the facts and claims in each complaint, Steve was able to identify potential defenses for these clients which placed the attorney’s fees provision of these Acts in issue for the plaintiff’s counsel and raised questions as to the potential for class certification in each of the claims.  By acting quickly, filing appropriate motions and advocating the defenses available to the firm’s clients, Steve was able to resolve each of these actions as individual claims and not as class actions which saved each of the clients substantial amounts of time and money before the cases were certified as class actions.

Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim against car dealership significantly discounted

Plaintiff sued defendant car dealership after her vehicle was broken into, alleging that the salesman and contract documents assured her that the vehicle had an alarm system.  Plaintiff sought damages totaling in excess of $30,000.  Plaintiff ultimately was awarded $2,400.00.

LGLJ Resolves Breach of Contract Suit Following Party Depositions

Steve Johnson was retained by a large commercial bakery to recover monies owed to it by a Chicagoland distributor who failed to properly remit the amounts owed to the bakery in accordance with the contract between the parties.  Steve realized at the start that this matter would not be resolved without filing suit, so he worked with the client to quickly prepare a serve a lawsuit on the distributor. Steve pushed the litigation forward to promptly depose the principals of the distributor and established the full nature of the breach that resulted in the distributor grossly underpaying on the contract.  As a result, the matter was settled shortly after depositions much to the satisfaction of the firm’s client.


Jury Returns Verdict in Favor of Doctor

Suzanne Favia Gillen and Michelle Paveza successfully tried and defended a medical negligence claim against a gynecologist.  The Plaintiff alleged that she suffered a ureter laceration that required corrective surgery when she underwent exploratory laparoscopic surgery with removal of the fallopian tubes and ovaries after a prior hysterectomy procedure. The defense contended the injury occurred as a result of a delayed heat injury during the dissection of a large amount of adhesions, and was a known risk of the procedure.  After 6 days of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Doctor.

First Party Property Settlement Makes Client Whole Following Fire

Steve Johnson and Matt Andris negotiated a settlement with the client’s first party property insurer for 100% of the client’s demand; thereby alleviating the need to file suit to collect the damages owed as well as the time and stress of litigation. The settlement was achieved as a result of the decision to prepare a detailed damages package with case law supporting the client’s right of recovery and to make the client available for an in-person meeting with the coverage counsel and claim manager for the insurance company.  Steve and Matt were able to achieve a complete recovery on behalf of the client who had been emotionally and financially damaged as a result of the fire that burned his dream home to the ground near the end of construction.

Jury Finds that Pathologist Met the Standard of Care

Troy Lundquist and Michelle Paveza represented a pathologist in a medical malpractice case.  Plaintiff alleged that the pathologist misread her pathology speciman. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the doctor – finding that the doctor did not violate the standard of care in treating the Plaintiff.

Court dismisses subcontractors Mechanics Lien compliant

Mohammed Nofal represented a not-for-profit property owner in a mechanics lien lawsuit. A subcontractor filed suit to enforce the lien. A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of the property owner as the subcontractor failed to perfect its lien. The court agreed and dismissed the claims against the property owner.

Prompt Investigation of Luxury Condominium Damage Claim Results in Client Vindication, Without Having to Incur Litigation Expense

A general contractor performing a complete remodel of a luxury penthouse condominium on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago retained Steve Johnson when the property owner improperly terminated the general contractor from the job site and alleged the firm’s client was responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars in water damage to the project under construction including claimed damage to a one-of-a-kind mural painted on the walls of the circular stairway between the two floors of the unit.  Steve quickly retained a structural engineer, an art historian and the other consultants needed to inspect the condominium, develop the necessary protocols and to perform the inspections which ultimately resulted in the firm’s client being paid in-full for its work and obtaining a complete release from the owner and his insurance carrier who had wrongly sought to blame the firm’s client for the damage to the property.

Death of a construction worker not due to road design

William Weiler successfully defended an engineering company who had been hired by the Illinois Department of Transportation to design improvements to an interstate highway. During construction, a flagger was struck and killed by a driver who had entered the construction zone. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the engineering company, holding that its design was not a proximate cause of the accident. The court also granted the engineering company’s motion to bar the plaintiff’s experts. The case is currently on appeal.

Jury Verdict in Favor of Defendant Upheld

John G. Langhenry III and Melissa J. Gordon successfully defended the appeal of a 2008 trial verdict in their client’s favor. The plaintiffs alleged medical negligence in relation to the treatment of an infection following heart surgery. The Appellate Court affirmed Trial Court rulings received by the defense on eight separate issues. The significant rulings contained in the published opinion include the use of licensure reprimands to impeach expert witnesses, the exclusion of evidence of a common insurance carrier between the defendant and other witnesses and the use of previously withdrawn opinions of the plaintiffs’ expert to establish a sole proximate cause defense. The Illinois Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s Petition for Leave to Appeal.