Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Wrongful Death

The case involved four wrongful death claims.  Plaintiffs’ estates alleged the failure to properly place stop signs.   Troy Lundquist and Anastasia Hess filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the DefendantTownship, and the trial court granted the Motion.

Car Dealer Did Not Commit Fraud and Bank Wins Breach of Contract Case

A DuPage County jury found in favor of both of Bill Weiler’s clients, a car dealer and a bank. The plaintiff claimed that the car dealer committed fraud by failing to disclose that her new vehicle had been in an accident prior to the time she purchased it and that the car dealer had breached its contract with her. The plaintiff also claimed that, under the terms of her agreement, she did not have to make the payments on her vehicle loan. Mr. Weiler was able to show the jury how the dealership had complied with its contract and that how it had not made any misstatements to the plaintiff. Mr. Weiler was also successful in recovering all of the money owed to the bank on the counterclaim he filed against the plaintiff.

Arbitrator Agrees with Defendants

Troy A. Lundquist and Mohammed A. Nofal secured a defense decision in binding arbitration. They defended a plumbing company in an automobile negligence case. At the close of the arbitration hearing, Plaintiff requested $3.1 million dollars from the arbitrator. The arbitrator agreed with Troy and Mohammed’s assessment of the case and returned a decision in line with their position.

Jury Does Not Buy Plaintiff’s Claimed Injuries

Bill Weiler represented a defendant driver in a lawsuit involving an automobile accident. Mr. Weiler’s client admitted running into the back of the plaintiff’s car, but disputed that she was injured to the extent that she claimed. Mr. Weiler was able to show, through the use of a bio-mechanical engineering expert, how the plaintiff’s injuries could not have been caused by the accident. The jury agreed and awarded the plaintiff less than 2% of the amount she requested.

 

Federal Jury Finds for Village on ADA Claim

Thomas Weiler successfully defended a Village police department on a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and was tried before Dist. Court Judge Matthew Kennelly. The plaintiff, a probationary police officer, claimed that he was terminated because he was “regarded as” disabled by the department because of an impairment in his night vision. The police department contended that his termination was a result of misconduct on his part, not because of any perceived disability. The plaintiff’s pre-trial demand was $375,000. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendantVillage after four days of trial.

Plaintiff found comparatively at fault

Michael Radak successfully defended a local grocery chain. Plaintiff was a 60 year old female that struck her foot on an electrical box at defendant’s grocery store. She claimed she suffered a questionable fracture in her foot and subsequently treated conservatively. She incurred $4,000 in medical bills, but claimed lost wages in excess of $400,000 as a result of no longer being able to work as a church organist. Defense was based on the suspect nature of her injuries, as well as the notion that the electrical box was an open and obvious condition. Parties agreed to binding arbitration with Ret. Judge Stuart Nudelman. Plaintiff requested $600,000 at the closing of the arbitration. The Arbitrator entered an award in the amount of $18,624.00 in favor of the Plaintiff, with a finding of 15% comparative fault, for a net award to Plaintiff of $15,830.40.

Natural Gas Company not liable for explosion

Troy A. Lundquist and Anastasia L. Hess were upheld by the appellate court. The Appellate Court affirmed the granting of summary judgment in favor of Defendant, a natural gas company. Plaintiffs suffered significant injuries following an explosion at their residence. Plaintiffs filed suit again the natural gas company alleging they failed to properly inspect the property. Troy and Anastasia filed a motion for summary judgment – which was granted. Plaintiffs appealed and the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the natural gas company.

Moving Company Not Liable for Discrimination

A jury in federal court found in favor of Bill Weiler’s client, a national moving company, in a lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged that the company violated her civil rights by failing to enter into a contract with her due to her race and that it intentionally interfered with contracts she planned to enter into with others. The jury found that Mr. Weiler’s client did not discriminate against the plaintiff in any way and that it had nothing to do with the plaintiff’s inability to enter into the other contracts.

Federal District Court Dismisses Civil Rights Claims against Village

Thomas Weiler successfully defended Village in Civil Rights Claims. Family sued the Village and several of its police officers claiming violations of their Civil Rights, allegedly in response to the family’s outspoken criticisms of the police department following what they believed to be insufficient investigations into an underage drinking party and the alleged rape of the minor teenage plaintiff. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which was granted. The court found that plaintiffs had not established a retaliation claim. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant officers on the claims for First Amendment retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court further granted summary judgment on the claims for false arrest, battery, and malicious prosecution.

 

Appellate Court Dismisses Case Against Defendant (Appellate Decision)

Troy A. Lundquist and Stacy K. Shelly were upheld on appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of all the Plaintiff’s claims of property damage to their tractor, totaling over $130,000, against the defendant tractor dealer. Both courts agreed with the defendant that the plaintiff was barred from bringing a tort claim against the defendant where the damage was limited to the product itself – the subject tractor. The courts also agreed that the defendant dealer was not bound by the manufacturer’s warranty for the tractor, and that there was no claim that could be sustained by the plaintiff against the defendant.