Steve Johnson and Kyle Lewis successfully defended a waste services company at arbitration from a claim for injuries Plaintiff allegedly sustained in a low-impact automobile accident. Plaintiff claimed that the waste service company’s truck and trailer, which was being driven by one of its employees, changed lanes into the plaintiff and struck the front corner of his vehicle, causing personal injuries to his back and neck. Steve and Kyle successfully argued at the arbitration that the accident was in fact caused by the Plaintiff when he rear-ended the trailer. The arbitrator’s entered an award in favor of the firm’s client. The plaintiff did not reject the award with the court, and a final judgment in defendant’s favor was entered.
Plaintiff filed suit based on breach of oral notes and contracts – and sought damages in excess of $150,000. Mohammed Nofal filed a Motion to Dismiss and argued that plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action. The court agreed with the Motion and dismissed plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.
Steve Johnson and Chris Dunsing resolved a complex multi-party property damage action against a high-profile developer and its subcontractors for the damage done to the ornate roof of a five-star hotel and luxury condominium building in Chicago. In this fiercely contested litigation, Steve and Chris had to overcome claims that the damage could have been caused by other construction projects occurring around the subject building as well as claims for spoliation of evidence and that the hotel’s own general contractor caused the damage. The recovery was completed following a 13-hour mediation where Steve and Chris methodically established each of the defendants’ claims to be without merit.
Rear-end collision was not the cause of the Plaintiff’s claimed injuries. Plaintiff claimed significant injuries to his back, neck and headaches following a car accident. Mohammed Nofal argued that the low-impact collision was not the proximate cause of the injury, and also disputed the nature and extent of the injuries. The jury agreed – and returned a defense verdict.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a motion to dismiss filed by Bill Weiler, John Masters, and Kyle Lewis. In doing so, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint, which alleged that a church and its pastors violated the Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Act, 18 U.S.C. 2701, by accessing private information on the plaintiff’s computer and information stored in a cloud based computer storage site. The court agreed with Messrs Weiler, Masters, and Lewis that the plaintiff could not maintain a cause of action under the Act and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.
Commercial Litigation – Obtained Complete Dismissal of Breach of Warranty Claim in Trial Court and Successfully Argued Case on Appeal
Steve Johnson and Chris Dunsing successfully defended an international lighting manufacturer sued for breach of warranty. Working quickly, Steve and Chris relied upon their knowledge of civil procedure and contract law to file a motion to dismiss a mult-count complaint against their client. After we obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the trial court, the Plaintiff appealed the decision. The appellate court was so impressed with the brief Steve and Chris prepared on behalf of their client that the opinion issued by the appellate court adopted large portions of the firm’s brief in affirming the decision of the trial court.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a complaint failed against a school by a former student and his parent for alleged violations of federal law, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Privacy Act of 1974; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; and alleged violations of the Illinois School Student Records Act; and claims of conspiracy; defamation; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff’s claims arose out the school’s decision not to readmit a student. Bill Weiler and Theresa Bresnahan-Coleman successfully argued that the judge should dismiss the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.
Mohammed Nofal successfully tried a motor vehicle collision resulting in a favorable defense verdict. Plaintiff claimed significant injuries as a result of the crash. Mohammed disputed that Plaintiff was injured to the extent she claimed. After an effective cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s medical physician, the jury disagreed with Plaintiff’s claim and returned a defense verdict in an amount significantly less than Mohammed’s settlement offer.
Following an automobile fire that resulted in a young woman suffering second and third degree burns when her dress caught fire while exiting the vehicle, Steve Johnson retained an origin and cause fire investigator and an engineer to prepare a protocol and perform a detailed inspection of the vehicle involved. Prior to the inspection Steve and the consultants reviewed all of the invoices for work performed on the vehicle by our client and, as a result of the inspection, Steve was able to convince counsel for the injured woman to eliminate the firm’s client as a defendant in the litigation. Prompt investigation of this loss preserved the evidence necessary to eliminate the firm’s client as a potential cause of the fire.
Suzanne Favia Gillen and Michelle Paveza successfully tried and defended a medical malpractice claim pending in KaneCounty. They defended a hematologist in a case involving the death of 78-year-old women who had been admitted to the hospital for complaints of weakness and a severely low platelet count. Two days after admission, and after undergoing treatment for idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), the patient suffered a massive stroke and died. At trial, the Estate claimed that the Doctor should have treated the patient for thrombotic thomobocytopenic purpura (TTP) instead. After a week of trial testimony, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Doctor.