|

The litigation privilege does not apply when a defamatory communication is made to people who have no legitimate “connection to the lawsuit.” Edelman, 338 Ill. App. 3d at 166. The Edelman rule applies whether or not a lawsuit has been filed, whether or not the complaint was shown to outsiders or its underlying allegations just discussed with them, and whether or not the complaint was a draft or filed version.

Nothing in Edelman supports holding that publication of a lawsuit in the court file immunizes the plaintiff in that case from libel claims if he publishes the lawsuit’s claims outside of the litigation.

The Edelman court made its findings based on facts about one attorney who had received a “draft or final” brief and another who had received a draft, all distributed after a bankruptcy trustee moved to reopen the bankruptcy estate. 338 Ill. App. 3d at 162. The court did consider an attorney’s receipt of a final, filed brief. But whether the briefs were in draft or final form was irrelevant to the holding that the allegedly defamatory communications made to two attorneys were not privileged. Id. at 166. Because neither attorney had a relationship to the litigation, the absolute privilege did not apply. Id. “Illinois has never extended the privilege to other persons without a connection to the lawsuit.” Id., citing, Kurzcaba v. Pollack, 318 Ill. App. 3d 686, 704 (1st Dist. 2000), and Thompson v. Frank, 313 Ill. App. 3d 661, 664 (3rd Dist. 2000).

Kurczaba did not reject he privilege only because the case involved an amended complaint not yet filed with leave of court. But, that court actually opined, “Assuming, arguendo, that defendant had a right to disseminate the Malus complaint with the ad, we nonetheless would find that the dissemination was also not protected by the attorney litigation privilege because the groups defendant disseminated the materials to extended beyond those covered by the privilege.” 318 Ill. App. 3d at 703. Continue reading ›

|
Labovitz v. Dolan, 189 Ill. App. 3d 403 (1st Dist. 1989) is a case that was heard by the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division. The case involved a dispute between Joel Labovitz and a group of investors, who were referred to as the “Labovitz Group,” and Charles F. Dolan and a group of investors, who were referred to as the “Dolan Group.”
The dispute centered around a real estate development project in Chicago. The Labovitz Group had entered into a joint venture agreement with the Dolan Group to develop a commercial real estate property in Chicago. The agreement specified that the parties would share equally in the profits and losses of the project. However, after the project was completed, the Dolan Group refused to distribute any profits to the Labovitz Group, claiming that there were no profits to distribute.

The Labovitz Group then filed a lawsuit against the Dolan Group, alleging breach of contract and fraud. The trial court ruled in favor of the Dolan Group, finding that there were no profits to distribute and that the Labovitz Group had failed to prove their fraud claims.

The Labovitz Group appealed the trial court’s decision to the Appellate Court of Illinois. The appellate court overturned the trial court’s decision, finding that the Dolan Group had breached the joint venture agreement and that the Labovitz Group was entitled to an equal share of the profits. The appellate court also found that the Dolan Group had committed fraud by misrepresenting the financial condition of the project.

One of the key issues in this case was the interpretation of the joint venture agreement. The appellate court found that the agreement was clear and unambiguous in its terms and that the Dolan Group had breached the agreement by failing to distribute profits to the Labovitz Group.

Another important issue in this case was the question of fraud. The appellate court found that the Dolan Group had made misrepresentations about the financial condition of the project, which constituted fraud under Illinois law.

Labovitz highlights the importance of clear and unambiguous contracts in business transactions. It also underscores the importance of honesty and integrity in business dealings and the legal remedies that are available to parties who have been wronged.  The case also highlights that controlling partners or owners owe very high fiduciary duties to other limited partners. shareholders or LLC members. The decision relies upon what has become the most celebrated pronouncement characterizing the fiduciary relationship that exists among partners, Chief Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo stated for the court in the case of Meinhard v. Salmon (1928), 249 N.Y. 458, 463–64 that:

“… copartners, owe to one another … the duty of the finest loyalty. Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm’s length, are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties. A trustee is held to something stricter than the morals of the market place. Not honesty alone but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior. As to this there has developed a tradition that is unbending and inveterate. Uncompromising rigidity has been the attitude of courts of equity when petitioned to undermine the rule of undivided loyalty by the ‘disintegrating erosion’ of particular exceptions. [Citation] Only thus has the level of conduct for fiduciaries been kept at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd. It will not consciously be lowered by any judgment of this court.”
The case found that Dolan’s discretion to withhold cash was not absolute; it was limited by an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing implicit in every Illinois contract and by his fiduciary duty to his partners. “Good faith between contracting parties requires that a party vested with contractual discretion must exercise his discretion reasonably and may not do so arbitrarily or capriciously.” The Court held:
It is also clear, however, that despite having such broad discretion, Dolan still owed his limited partners a fiduciary duty, which necessarily encompasses the duty of exercising good faith, honesty, and fairness in his dealings with them and the funds of the partnership. (See: Couri, 95 Ill.2d 91, 69 Ill.Dec. 117, 447 N.E.2d 334; Mandell, 86 Ill.App.3d 437, 41 Ill.Dec. 323, 407 N.E.2d 821; Dayan, 125 Ill.App.3d 972, 81 Ill.Dec. 156, 466 N.E.2d 958; Foster Enterprises, 97 Ill.App.3d 22, 52 Ill.Dec. 303, 421 N.E.2d 1375.) It is no answer to the claim that plaintiffs make in this case that partners have the right to establish among themselves their rights, duties and obligations, as though the exercise of that right releases, waives or delimits somehow, the high fiduciary duty owed to them by the general partner—a gloss we do not find anywhere in our law. On the contrary, the fiduciary duty exists concurrently with the obligations set forth in the partnership agreement whether or not expressed therein. Indeed, at least one of the authorities relied upon by defendants is clear that although “partners are free to vary many aspects of their relationship inter se, … they are not free to destroy its fiduciary character.” Saballus, 122 Ill.App.3d at 116, 77 Ill.Dec. 451, 460 N.E.2d 755.
Thus, the language in the Articles standing alone does not deprive plaintiffs of the trial they seek against Dolan for breach of fiduciary *413 duty.

Continue reading ›

|

Yes, it is possible to sue a lawyer in a shareholder derivative action in certain jurisdictions including Illinois. A shareholder derivative action is a lawsuit brought by a shareholder on behalf of a corporation against a third party. The lawsuit is typically brought when the corporation has been harmed by the actions of a third party, but the corporation’s management has failed to take action.

In a shareholder derivative action, the shareholder acts as a representative of the corporation and brings the lawsuit on the corporation’s behalf. If the shareholder is successful in the lawsuit, any damages or remedies awarded go to the corporation, not to the individual shareholder.

In some cases, the corporation’s harm may be caused by the actions of the corporation’s own lawyers. For example, if a lawyer provides negligent or inadequate legal advice to the corporation, causing the corporation to suffer damages, the corporation’s shareholders may be able to bring a shareholder derivative action against the lawyer on behalf of the corporation.

In order to bring a successful shareholder derivative action against a lawyer, the shareholders must be able to show that the lawyer breached their duty of care to the corporation and that this breach caused harm to the corporation. The shareholders must also show that they have exhausted all other available remedies, such as asking the corporation’s management to take action against the lawyer.

In conclusion, it is possible to sue a lawyer in a shareholder derivative action if the lawyer’s actions have harmed the corporation. However, such lawsuits can be complex and challenging, and it is important to seek the advice of a qualified attorney before pursuing this type of legal action. Continue reading ›

|

The family of Marvin Gaye rocked the music world in 2015 when they sued Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for copying elements of Gaye’s hit, “Got to Give It Up,” in their own hit, “Blurred Lines.” Up until the jury sided with Gaye’s family, most musicians had assumed the musical elements in question were public domain.

That lawsuit seems to have opened up the floodgates, given the number of copyright lawsuits that have been filed in the music industry in the past eight years. Not all the lawsuits have ended in the plaintiffs’ favor, but enough have to give musicians pause when writing a new song.

The latest copyright lawsuit to make headlines in the music industry involves another Gaye song, “Let’s Get It On.” Instead of Gaye’s family, this copyright lawsuit has been filed by the family of Ed Townsend, who was the primary songwriter and owned 2/3 of the royalties on the song.

The case hinges on two chord progressions that are similar, but not identical. Even a musical expert testifying on behalf of the plaintiffs admitted the two chords have slight differences, but he maintained that they are interchangeable.

An attorney for the plaintiffs showed the jury a video of Sheeran performing a mashup of the two songs in question. The attorney claimed that Sheeran’s ability to move seamlessly from one song to the other proves that Sheeran stole the chord progression from the 1973 hit. Continue reading ›

|

If a lawsuit is filed and the parties decide to settle before the case gets to court, how can you know what evidence each party found to support their case? You can’t. Chances are good the defendant requested the court to seal the documents, meaning it would not be available to other lawyers, journalists, or the general public.

Over the years, attorneys for corporations have managed to convince the courts their clients need protection from the public, rather than the other way around. The courts’ willingness to go along with this has only endangered consumers who were prevented from being made aware of things like the dangers of opioids, weak car roofs, or guns with faulty triggers.

Over the years, various legislators and judges have acknowledged there are problems with the current system of sealing court documents, but so far they have been either unwilling or unable to make the necessary changes to protect consumers.

When the first rules allowing judges to seal court documents were created, they initially allowed judges to decide which documents to shield by considering them on a case-by-case basis. The rules were later broadened to include anything with the potential to embarrass or annoy a corporation. Continue reading ›

|

If you’re going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on something, especially when it comes to something like a classic car, it’s best to do your research and make sure you’re getting what you think you’re buying. Unfortunately, car dealerships have gotten better at hiding their tracks and making their fakes look legitimate. They’ll falsify everything from the title to the vehicle identification number (VIN) to make the sale look convincing, even when it’s not.

Adam Levine, the famous singer and songwriter who is probably best known for being the lead singer and guitar player of the band, Maroon 5, is also known for collecting classic cars. Now the pop star is making headlines for the lawsuit he’s filing against Rick Cole, a high-end car dealer who allegedly sold Levine a car that’s worth less than the $850,000 Levine allegedly paid for the car.

According to the lawsuit, Levine traded two classic Ferraris, a 1968 365 and a 1972 365, in exchange for a 1971 Maserati Ghibli 4.9 Liter Spyder plus $100,000 in cash.

With just 45 known to have been built, the Ghibli 4.9 Spyder is one of the rarest Maseratis in the world. As is often the case, the scarcity of the car makes it more desirable for classic car collectors like Levine. Unfortunately, that same desire can sometimes make people like Levine a target for scammers, as apparently happened when Levine made the alleged mistake of buying a car from Rick Cole.

It wasn’t until Levine tried to sell the Maserati to Autosport Designs, a car dealer in New York, that he realized the car was not all it had been made out to be. It turned out Autosport Designs had already sold another car with an identical VIN to the car Levine was trying to sell them. It wasn’t until that point that Levine had his team conduct further investigation into the origins of the vehicle and found it was not, in fact, a Ghibli 4.9 Spyder. Continue reading ›

|

Scott Norris Johnson is a quadriplegic who used to work for the IRS and now practices law suing local businesses for failing to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). As the lawyer filing these lawsuits, Johnson is entitled to at least a portion of the settlement money he receives from these lawsuits, but he is required to report that money on his income taxes. According to a recent lawsuit, Johnson knowingly failed to report that income on his taxes, thereby defrauding the U.S. government of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Johnson pleaded guilty to the charge of tax evasion and agreed to pay $250,000 in restitution and spend 18 months of home detention. The judge presiding over the case, John Mendez, insisted that Johnson be made to pay a fine in addition to the $250,000 in restitution and home detention. That was not part of the plea agreement, but Johnson agreed to pay the $50,000 fine Mendez wanted him to pay.

Mendez pointed out that the money is a drop in the bucket for Johnson, who has assets of $1.3 million and a monthly income of $81,000, thanks to all the ADA lawsuits he’s filing. Mendez was also concerned by Johnson’s lack of remorse for his actions, and pointed out that, were it not for his disability, he’d be serving up to three years in prison. Continue reading ›

|

As a business owner, partner, or shareholder, complex disputes may arise that require efficient legal resolution. Choosing the right court to file suit can be more complex than one might initially think, especially in cases involving breach of fiduciary duty claims. A recent case from the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Bare v. Al. Ringling Brewing Co., Inc., 21-CV-642-JDP, 2022 WL 2315594 (W.D. Wis. June 28, 2022), demonstrates that complex issues of federal court jurisdiction may preclude bringing certain claims in federal court, even though that may be a more appealing jurisdiction than state court.

First, it is important to understand the choice you may face in deciding which venue to pursue a potential claim. In cases where there are multiple claims or causes of action, a plaintiff may have the option to file suit in federal court. Federal jurisdiction typically arises when the case involves a federal question, such as a claim arising under federal law, or when there is diversity jurisdiction – meaning that the parties are residents of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. However, when there are also state law claims that arise from the same set of facts, the plaintiff must consider whether to litigate these claims in state court or to consolidate them with the federal claims.

One advantage of bringing all claims, both federal and state, in federal court is the possibility of greater efficiency in the litigation process. This is because federal courts often have more resources and can handle cases more quickly than their state court counterparts. Additionally, federal court judges tend to have more experience dealing with complex legal issues, which may be particularly beneficial in cases that involve intricate federal questions. Consolidating claims in federal court also allows for the resolution of all claims in a single forum, which can save time and resources for all parties involved.

On the other hand, there are potential disadvantages to bringing state law claims in federal court. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning that they can only hear certain types of cases. If a federal court decides it does not have jurisdiction over the state law claims, the plaintiff may have to litigate these claims in state court, essentially splitting the case into two separate lawsuits. This can be both time-consuming and costly. Furthermore, federal courts will apply state law to state law claims, and there is a risk that a federal court may misinterpret or misapply the relevant state law, leading to an unfavorable outcome for the plaintiff. Continue reading ›

|

In a recent 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Warrington v. Rocky Patel Premium Cigars, Inc., No. 22-12575, 2023 WL 1818920 (11th Cir. Feb. 8, 2023), the court provided valuable lessons for partners, shareholders, and small business owners who may find themselves in disputes. This case serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the importance of careful strategy and legal counsel when pursuing litigation or arbitration.

The dispute centered on Brad Warrington, a minority shareholder in Rocky Patel Premium Cigars, who wanted to divest from his holdings in the company. The buy-sell agreement between Warrington and Rakesh Patel, the majority shareholder, included an arbitration provision for any disputes arising out of the agreement. However, the case demonstrates how mistakes made during litigation can result in a waiver of the right to arbitration.

After years of disagreement over the value of Warrington’s shares and alleged improprieties by Patel, Warrington found a private buyer and notified Patel of his intention to sell. Patel refused to acknowledge the notice and subsequently sued Warrington in Florida state court, seeking a declaratory judgment and alleging breach of contract, among other claims.

While the state action was pending, Warrington sued Patel in federal court, bringing several counts, including breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Patel moved to dismiss, remand, or stay the federal action, but the district court denied his motion. It wasn’t until June 2022 that Patel moved to stay and compel arbitration under the agreement. However, the district court denied this motion, finding that Patel had waived his right to arbitrate by initially filing in state court and moving to dismiss or remand Warrington’s federal action. Continue reading ›

|

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently proposed a new rule that could significantly impact the enforceability of non-compete clauses in employment agreements. This development could have far-reaching consequences for both employers and employees in Illinois and across the nation. In this blog post, we will provide an overview of the proposed rule and discuss its potential implications for employees in Illinois.

The FTC’s proposed rule aims to declare non-compete clauses as an unfair method of competition, thereby preventing employers from entering into new non-compete agreements with workers and requiring employers to rescind existing non-compete clauses. The FTC estimates that this rule could increase American workers’ earnings between $250 billion and $296 billion per year. 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