Articles Posted in Best Business And Class Action Lawyers Near Chicago

|

Lubin Austermuehle’s predecessor firm litigated a case that is now before the Illinois Supreme Court on Respondent’s appeal of 750 ILCS § 5/513 (“Section 513”) being declared unconstitutional.

When an Illinois Statute is declared by a court to be unconstitutional it can be directly appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court and it does not have to go through to the Appellate Court first. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 302(a)(1).

The Respondent in the underlying case, where Section 513 was declared by the circuit court to be unconstitutional filed a direct appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court to decide if Section 513 is unconstitutional.

Lubin Austermuehle was retained by our client in the circuit court case to defend him in the appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court.

The circuit court’s ruling that Section 513 is unconstitutional was only applicable to the facts of the case. Our client’s fundamental right of raising his child and his decision to guide his daughter to a more appropriate college through the tightening of his pocket-book strings was obstructed by Section 513.

Section 513 creates two separate classes of persons, those married with children and those unmarried, widowed, or divorced with children. This is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection to all United States citizens regardless of their classification by the government. Continue reading ›

|

Although no one legally needs a reason to fire a consultant, it’s another matter entirely to allegedly defame that consultant to other potential clients. According to a recent defamation lawsuit, that’s allegedly what happened after Tim Semmerling was fired from the U.S. Department of Defense’s Office of Military Commissions.

Semmerling, who lives in Illinois, opened his own mitigation services practice in 2010, called The Mercury Endeavor LLC, which specializes in working with Arabs, Muslims, and the military.

Semmerling said he was contacted in June of 2011 by Cheryl Bormann, another Illinois resident who is a qualified lead counsel attorney for death penalty litigation. At the time, Bormann was working as a defense attorney for a member of al-Qaeda who was being held at Guantanamo Bay while facing charges pertaining to the terrorist attack that happened on September 11, 2001.

According to the complaint, Bormann allegedly offered to hire Semmerling as the client’s mitigation specialist and instructed him to not accept any offers from other defense teams.

Semmerling said he started working for the client in October of 2011 when he traveled to Washington to meet with Bormann and the rest of the capital defense team. In July 2012, he made another trip to Washington for an interview with agents of the CIA so he could get the security clearance required to serve his new client. According to the complaint, Bormann and Michael Schwartz, a U.S. Air Force officer who was acting as an attorney on assignment at the Military Commissions Defense Organization, allegedly told Semmerling to be open and honest with the CIA operatives, and so when they asked questions about his personal life, Semmerling allegedly did not hold back from talking about his long-term, romantic relationship with another man. Continue reading ›

|

While Stormy Daniels has been dominating headlines since news broke of her alleged affair with Donald Trump when his wife was recovering from having given birth to their son, another woman from Trump’s past is also refusing to let him forget about the misdeeds he allegedly committed with her. The main difference being that, while Daniels was a willing participant in her alleged affair with Trump, Summer Zevos alleges Trump’s advances on her were unwelcome, unsolicited, and were committed during what she had been led to believe would be a business meeting.

Zervos was initially a contestant on Trump’s show, The Apprentice. Although she didn’t make it to the end of the season, Zervos said she was invited to meet with Trump at the Beverly Hills Hotel so she could pitch some of her business ideas to him. That’s when he allegedly sexually assaulted her.

Like many other women, Zervos went public with her experiences during the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump followed in the footsteps of countless other men accused of sexual misconduct, not only by accusing Zervos of lying but by trying to degrade her character in general. In the age-old he said/she said debate, discrediting the woman is a classic tactic and Trump is hardly the first to use it. He’s also far from the first person to get away with it.

But Zervos is firing back. She sued Trump for defamation of character in Manhattan. Continue reading ›

|

A recent ruling in the Illinois Appellate Court decided a very tough decision about two very qualified parents and whether the one parent could move out of Illinois with their minor child, so she could pursue her dream job.

Two individuals were married and had one minor child, they decided to separate and had been granted joint custody and decision making for their child. While married the couple lived in the City of Chicago and then later moved to Downers Grove in their marital home. During the divorce proceedings the marital home was sold, and the father moved to a rental home a few doors down from the marital home and the mother moved to an apartment nearby. The minor child’s mother had the life long dream of getting her Ph.D. from a school in North Carolina. The mother petitioned the circuit court to relocate to North Carolina because she was successful in being admitted to the Ph.D. program that she wanted to attend and would work in her dream job while studying for her degree. Experts for both parents determined that both parents had a successful and nurturing relationship with their minor child and that she would succeed with either parent in Illinois or North Carolina. The father objected to his minor child moving away to North Carolina as, among other things, he would not see her as often and would not have as many in-person interactions with his daughter. Continue reading ›

|

An Illinois trial court ruled in favor of our client. The trial court held that the Illinois College Support Requirement for unmarried parents is unconstitutional as violating the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.

Our client, a very caring father wanted to pay 100% of the college expenses for his daughter to attend the best marine biology programs in the country to which she had been accepted. Her dream was to become a marine biologist. However, with the financial assistance of her mother, the daughter opted to attend a junior college and “party school” in Florida that had even made a list for the top party schools in the State. The Junior College also did not offer a degree in marine biology. Our client declined to pay for junior college tuition because he was shut out of the decision of where his daughter went to school. The Court originally ordered him to contribute to college as required by Illinois for all unmarried parents. We then sought a declaration that the statute was unconstitutional for treating unmarried parents differently and assuming they were not normal parents and would not look out for their children’s best interests as much as married parents.  The Court found the statute unconstitutional and held that divorced or unmarried parents should not be treated differently than married parents.

The Court noted:

While traditional two-parent, married families were the norm in 1978, in 2018 they make up less than half. In fact, if considered in statistical terms, children from either non-married or divorced parents would be considered “normal” based on today’s demographics.

It held in finding the Illinois statute unconstitutional:

The rational basis standard utilized in Kujawinski presumes that never married or divorced couples are less normal and less likely to provide post-secondary education for their offspring than couples who are married, or single parents. While this may have been true in 1978, there is no basis for such a conclusion today.

You can view the Court’s full opinion here. Continue reading ›

|

Uber settled its legal fight after being accused of plotting to steal self-driving technology, which is considered to be the way of the future. It took more than four days in court, which included arguments and testimony. An overall case worth stood at $245 million.  The settlement was mainly concerning the trade secrets. The case was between Google’s parent company, Alphabet, and could be considered one of the most intense legal fights of Silicon Valley. This is especially since it concerns a startup vs. one of the biggest technology giants’ parent. The overall potential of the industry is trillion-dollars that are predicted to transform transportation.

The case showcased what many in Silicon Valley normally struggle with: the sudden rise of start-ups, the workings of the rich companies, the rivalries, and competition for talent.  Continue reading ›

|

Bands work hard to build and maintain a certain image, which is why they have to react quickly when someone tries to infringe on that image.

According to a recent trademark lawsuit, a Mexican hotel, located in Baja, California, was allegedly trying infringe on the image of the famous rock band, the Eagles, by changing the hotel’s name to Hotel California. The hotel was also allegedly playing the band’s music in and around the hotel, and selling T-shirts and other merchandise with “Hotel California” emblazoned across them as part of the hotel’s marketing campaign for their new name.

The hotel’s original title was actually “Hotel California” when it was founded back in 1950. Over the years, it acquired new owners and new names, but when John and Debbie Stewart bought the hotel in 2001, they decided to restore its original name.

The hotel is now owned by a company called Hotel California Baja LLC, which applied for a trademark for the name of the hotel, and that’s when the Eagles filed their lawsuit against the hotel company in the U.S. District Court of Los Angeles. Continue reading ›

|

Environmental groups have sued to stop the Bayou Bridge pipeline after it received construction permits and the green light to start. The construction will take a toll on the environment. This has affected local businesses who used to harvest large amounts of crawfish but now the traps yield dead crawfish.

The purpose of the pipeline is to deliver crude oil to a terminal in St. James Parish. The first phase of the project, which consists of a 30-inch pipeline from Nederland to Lake Charles.

The U.S. Army Corporation of Engineer’s decision to issue the permit for construction followed completion of an environmental assessment, review of its compliance with Section 408 of the Clean Water Act and feedback received during a public notice.

Construction must comply with provisions aimed at protecting nesting periods for birds.  Builders of the pipeline also will have to survey the route for the presence of both active and inactive eagle nests.

Engineers had a permit issued in around mid-December and the people in the vicinity of the Atchafalaya Basin know of its uniqueness to the whole world. Part of nature provides subsistence for the Cajun people.  The water quality is substantially affected.

Environmental groups are trying hard to block further construction by requesting the state court to force the company to turn over records to seize private property or obtain easements on property along the pipeline path. Surveillance records from a company have also been requested.  The suit, called a writ of mandamus, was filed against the pipeline and its president, by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of Atchafalaya Basinkeeper.

Public purpose and the right to the state’s public laws are being asserted and become grounds for being subject to Public Records Law.  The land that was once public will become for private profit usage with no oversight.  The pipeline process could affect health, the natural environment, and people’s livelihoods.  Multiple parties have a stake in this: from small business operators who harvest food, locals and those who profit.

To challenge the making of the pipeline for violations of environmental law is the starting ground for the attack on a corporation that is said to have a history of violations. The plaintiffs claim the permit granted violates the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act. Continue reading ›

|

Jurisdictional issues can affect any case and are most likely to be more common in America where the variances in counties and states are, perhaps, greater than anywhere else in the world.  Such concerns affect all cases in terms of venue and the ties that parties may have to a certain jurisdiction over another.

The death of Charles Manson has been no exception to challenging jurisdiction.  His recent death has to lead to unexpected claims over his remains and the venue for the matter still needs to be decided.

Shortly after his death, two Wills have resurfaced with each one leaving the estate to a different person.  He died at a hospital in Bakersfield, California but those that wish to claim rights reside in a different jurisdiction.  A judge in Los Angeles considers it to be too early to determine who has the right to the remains and the estate of the cult leader that died in November. He was originally have thought not to have any next of kin and now that people claiming entitlement have surfaced, the decision over his remains and estate should be decided in a separate hearing.  The judge will also decide whether the case should be tried in the county where he lived before the crimes that he was involved in were committed, where he was imprisoned before his death or where he died.  Continue reading ›

|

Although most board members of publicly traded companies are paid an annual salary, plus a bonus based on performance (usually in the form of company stock), being on the board of a company or organization tends to be a part-time job and most members have day jobs in addition to their position on the board.

But because board members bear a fiduciary responsibility to look after the financial interests of the company’s investors, they have to be very careful where they get the rest of their income. Accept some money or do a favor for someone from the wrong company, and you raise suspicions that you might have a conflict of interests.

Alan Kahn, an investor in United Flexible, Inc., an aerospace parts manufacturer and an affiliate of Arlington Capital Partners, filed a lawsuit in Delaware against two of Kreisler Manufacturing Corp.’s board members for allegedly conducting a merger in bad faith. According to the lawsuit, the two board members, Edward Stern and his brother Michael, received side deals from Arlington just before the board decided to drop its asking price for the company.

The lawsuit further alleges board members deliberately failed to disclose important information from shareholders regarding the merger. As evidence, Kahn’s complaint points to the fact that the board members refused to make copies of the merger agreement, requiring instead that all shareholders who wanted any information about the details about the agreement needed to be willing to fly to Philadelphia to see a physical copy of the contract. Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW

Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.

Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Lubin Austermuehle, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design