https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xEM_ct6RJQ
We bring suit for odometer fraud and other car dealer scams such as selling rebuilt wrecks as certified used cars. Super Lawyers has selected our DuPage and Cook County auto-fraud and lemon law attorneys as among the top 5% in Illinois. We only collect our fee if we win or settle your case. For a free consultation call us at our toll free number 630-333-0333 or contact us on the web by clicking here.
DiTommaso Lubin is a commercial law firm based in Chicago and Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois that focuses on handling all of the legal issues confronting businesses in today’s world. We represent both plaintiffs and defendants, and we have experience representing clients in matters ranging from contract disputes to fraud. Our Chicago business law attorneys have over two and half decades of experience in business lawsuits and have won favorable verdicts in “bet the business” lawsuits. DiTommaso Lubin has Chicago business litigation attorneys who can identify and understand the legal issues in a dispute, no matter how complex they may be. We will use our resources and knowledge to formulate a plan of action that will help further your interests, resolve your problems, and get you back to growing your business. Our focus with each client is to resolve the legal issues efficiently and with minimal costs, while still providing outstanding representation. If your business is being sued or you are seeking advice to stay out of court, call our Naperville business lawyers to discuss what DiTommaso Lubin can do for you. For a consultation, call 630-333-0333 or send us an email through our website.
DiTommaso Lubin has successfully litigated many business disputes, and in our many years of experience we have found that contract claims are among the most contentious conflicts. Because so many of our clients deal with breach of contract issues, our Elmhurst business attorneys are always mindful of new court decisions issued in this area of the law. In fact, our lawyers just discovered one such case, Jumpfly Inc. v. Torling, in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Jumpfly Inc. v. Torling pits a Plaintiff employer against two former employees who allegedly violated the non-compete agreements signed when they were hired by Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Torling started a competing pay-per-click internet advertising side-business while in Defendant’s employ, and upon discovering its employee’s side-business, fired him and sent a cease and desist letter demanding that he stop violating the non-compete. The parties eventually negotiated a settlement allowing Torling to continue his business, but the agreement prohibited him from soliciting any of Plaintiff’s employees. Torling allegedly solicited Defendant Burke — who was working for Plaintiff at the time under a similar non-compete agreement — and got him to quit his position with Plaintiff to work for Defendant Torling.
Plaintiff then filed suit against the two individuals and the new company (Windy City) that they worked for — alleging rescission of a settlement agreement, breach of contract, violations of the Lanham Act and Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and intentional interference with contract based upon non-compete agreements between the parties. Plaintiff’s requested the Court to enjoin Defendants’ competitive business conduct and for monetary damages. In response, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief and filed a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6).
The Court granted the motion to strike as to the breach of contract claim because the two year term of the non-compete agreement had already expired and an injunction would result in an unreasonable restraint of trade. The Court also noted that Plaintiff’s seven-month delay — after discovery of the illicit conduct — in asking for an injunction also weighed in favor of Defendants. The Court denied the motion to strike as to the statutory claims, however, because injunctive relief is provided by both laws which rendered the motion premature.
Next, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the breach of contract and intentional interference with contract claims due to pleading insufficient facts that Defendant Windy City induced either of the individual Defendants to breach their contracts with Plaintiff. In dismissing Plaintiffs conspiracy to interfere with contract, the Court applied the Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine and declined to agree with Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants’ conduct fell with in an exception to the rule. Finally, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the settlement agreement breach claim as the effect of Defendants’ breaches had yet to be determined.
At DiTommaso Lubin, we pride ourselves on staying abreast of changes in the law that may affect our clients, especially those rendered by the highest court in the state. The Supreme Court of Illinois released a new decision not long ago that was picked up by our Lombard business litigation attorneys, and the case is of particular interest to business owners who have personally guaranteed a business loan. In JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Earth Foods, Inc. the Court addressed the meaning of the term surety and whether a guarantor falls within that definition under the Illinois Sureties Act.
The initial dispute in JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Earth Foods, Inc. arose from a line of credit extended by Plaintiff JP Morgan Chase Bank to Defendant Earth Foods. The loan was personally guaranteed by the three co-owners of Earth Foods, and three years after the line of credit was first extended, Earth Foods defaulted on the loan. Plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against both the company for breach of contract and the co-owners as guarantors of the defaulted loan. The individual Defendants asserted an affirmative defense that the guaranty obligation was discharged under the Sureties Act because the Act applies to both guarantors and sureties and the law does not distinguish between the two. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. In granting the motion, the court held that the individual Defendants were guarantors and the Act only applied to sureties. Defendants appealed the trial court’s decision, and the appellate court held that the term surety encompassed both a surety and a guarantor under the Act and remanded the case. Plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court to review the appellate court’s reversal.
On appeal, the Supreme Court performed an extensive statutory analysis of the Illinois Sureties Act. In performing this analysis, the Court first determined that dictionaries, treatises and past court decisions recognize a clear legal distinction between guarantors and sureties. They then went on to determine the legislative intent behind the Sureties Act through a discussion of other laws related to the same subject matter. Through their discussion, the Court held that a suretyship differs from a guaranty in that a suretyship is a primary obligation to ensure the debt is paid, while a guaranty is an obligation to pay the debt if the principal does not pay. The Court went on to say that the plain language of the Act indicates that the protections of the Sureties Act are not applicable to guarantors. Despite this ruling, the Court held that summary judgment was improperly granted in JP Morgan Chase Bank’s favor and remanded the case to the trial court due to genuine issues of fact regarding whether the parties intended the individual Defendants to be guarantors or sureties for the loan in question.
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Earth Foods, Inc. unequivocally answered the question whether the terms surety and guarantor are interchangeable for the purposes of the Illinois Sureties Act. Despite the fact that there is a clear distinction between the two, the Supreme Court allows for the intent of the parties to rule when including either term in a loan agreement. Therefore, business owners should be careful when drafting and negotiating the terms of a guarantor or a surety and be clear which role is intended by the parties to avoid a potential lawsuit down the road.
Business litigation is necessarily an adversarial process – the stakes are high and as such the opposing parties in most lawsuits will fight over many issues during the case. One of the most contentious segments of any case is the discovery process. Because the information obtained during discovery can make or break a case, it is important to understand the law in this area. In that vein, our Berwyn business attorneys would like to share a recent Illinois Appellate Court decision that may affect many of our clients the next time they go to court.
In Mueller Industries Inc. v. Berkman, Defendant Berkman worked for Plaintiff as president of a company owned by Plaintiff pursuant to an employment contract. During his employment, Defendant formed an investment partnership and obtained a 10% ownership interest in a company that was one of Plaintiff’s primary suppliers. Defendant’s lawyer – whose firm was also counsel for Plaintiff – advised him how to structure the investment venture so as to not run afoul of his employment contract with Plaintiff. The initial employment agreement subsequently expired, and a new open-ended agreement was consummated that contained a non-compete clause and other restrictive covenants governing outside financial interests and business opportunities. Defendant then had his attorney form a new company to compete with Plaintiff, and Defendant subsequently resigned his position with Plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed suit for breach of his employment contract and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging Defendant profited personally at the expense of Mueller through his investment partnership. A discovery dispute ensued when Defendant refused to produce documents related to his investment in the supply company and his creation of the competing company. Defendant refused production based upon the 5th amendment and attorney-client privileges. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production, which was granted by the trial court.
Defendant appealed the trial court’s grant of the motion, and reasserted that the documents were privileged. The Appellate Court reversed in part, holding that Defendant’s pre-existing relationship with his lawyer kept all communication prior to the attorney’s firm’s representation of Plaintiff privileged. However, all communications after the dual representation began were no longer so protected because Defendant no longer had any reasonable expectation of confidentiality. Finally, the Court found that Defendant had failed to demonstrate that producing the requested documents would amount to incriminating testimony, but remanded the case with orders for the lower court to perform an in camera review of the disputed documents and urged the trial court to make a detailed record of its findings.
Below is a video describing that common practice of deceiving used car buyers into purchasing a rebuilt wreck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2ykYxvB43M
If you have already fallen victim to this scam or other used car frauds our Chicago lemon law and auto fraud lawyers may be able to assist you.
While most businesses strive to maintain employee stability, the fact of the matter is that during the course of any company’s existence there will be a certain amount of turnover. In states like Illinois, many employers utilize employment contracts that contain non-compete clauses and other restrictive covenants to protect themselves when employees depart. In spite of these precautionary measures, disputes will often still occur, which is why our Aurora non-compete lawyers are always watching developments in this area of the law.
In Steam Sales Corp. v. Summers, Defendant Summers worked for Plaintiff soliciting and servicing customer accounts pursuant to a written employment agreement that contained both non-compete and liquidated damages clauses. The clauses were to be effective for two years after the cessation of Defendant’s employment with Plaintiff. Plaintiff had several exclusive relationships with manufacturers, which gave it access to information not available to its competitors that served as an advantage in the marketplace. Defendant had access to this information, and after working for Plaintiff for almost two years, he quit to form a competing company and subsequently obtained the business of two of Plaintiffs (now) former clients.
In response, Plaintiff filed suit for Defendant’s violation of the restrictive covenant contained in the employment agreement between the parties and demanded injunctive relief pursuant to the liquidated damages clause in the contract. The circuit court granted the preliminary injunction based upon the non-compete clause and enjoined Defendant from soliciting or selling any service or product similar or identical to Plaintiff’s. Defendant then filed an interlocutory appeal. The Appellate Court found that Plaintiff had not breached the parties’ contract and that the restrictive covenant was enforceable because it was reasonable in its geographic (Defendant’s sales territory when he worked for Plaintiff) and temporal scope and in its application.
To Get In, Push Buttons, or Maybe Swipe a Magnet
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: March 26, 2011
A lawsuit argues that push-button locks are easily, and discreetly, foiled, accuse Kaba of deceptive trade practices, common-law fraud, negligence and product liability.
To read the full article click here.
You can link to a video showing how easily Kaba locks allegedly can be by-passed with a magent at this blog site by clicking here.
Our Chicago commercial litigation attorneys at DiTommaso Lubin handle complex class action lawsuits and other commercial disputes. You can contact us on the internet by clicking here or call us at our toll free number 630-333-0333.
In a very informative short piece, the Wall Street Journal reports that Howard Stern has filed suit regarding Sirius/XM’s failure to pay Stern and his agent stock bonus payments that were part of Stern’s compensation package. Stern initially did not press for the payments for a few years but has now filed suit for non-payment. The main issue in the dispute is whether XM subscribers post merger can be included in the target subscriber base numbers which trigger stock bonus payment obligations. The article states:
Howard Stern, who seems to be in a perpetual fight with his bosses, is at it again.
The production company for the radio personality is suing Sirius XM, claiming the satellite radio company has refused to pay stock awards it owes to him based on subscriber targets in Stern’s contract. The lawsuit also says Sirius owes money to Stern’s agent under a consulting agreement.
“World-renowned radio personality Howard Stern (“Stern”) put Sirius on the map,” the lawsuit says. “But, with the exception of a stock award that Sirius paid for the initial year of Stem’s contract, Sirius has refused to pay One Twelve [the production company for Stern’s show] the additional performance-based stock awards to which One Twelve is entitled.”
You can read the full article by clicking here. You can read the Complaint in the lawsuit by clicking here.
Another interesting article on the dispute appeared in Forbes. That article provides some speculation on the behind the scenes motives driving the case and can be read by clicking here.
Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog
