|

The line between security and privacy has always been a bit blurry and it continues to get blurrier every day as technology advances. One of the latest developments in surveillance technology has been facial recognition software, which is allegedly capable of identifying you with just a quick scan of your face. While this could have far-reaching effects in the crime-solving world, it also eliminates much of our personal privacy in the process.

Brian Hofer is a paralegal in California who has been fighting to ban facial recognition software for the past five years. As soon as he became aware of the technology in 2014, he joined activist groups to try to get the technology banned from his hometown of Oakland. Once that was accomplished, he started working with other local government bodies across California to ban the technology from their streets. Since then, Hofer has drafted 26 different privacy laws for cities and counties all over the state of California, and all 26 have been approved.

While facial recognition technology may have been the catalyst for Hofer to start fighting for each citizen’s right to privacy, it has extended beyond that to include demands that companies and governing bodies be transparent about the kind of technology they’re using for their surveillance efforts. He has also convinced some cities, including Richmond and Berkeley, to cancel their contracts with tech companies like Vigilant Solutions and Amazon – both Richmond and Berkeley have sanctuary policies and both Vigilant Solutions and Amazon share information with ICE, so Hofer successfully argued that maintaining both the sanctuary policies and contracts with those companies constituted a conflict. Continue reading ›

|

Our Chicago car fraud lawyers have been litigating for many years claims against car and truck manufacturers who decline to stand behind certified pre-owned (CPO”) vehicles that turn out to be rebuilt wrecks or flood vehicles. We recently beat back a motion to dismiss by General Motors in such a case. General Motors claimed that the Texas GMC dealer who sold our client the truck at issue was a necessary party to the case and that since General Motors hadn’t sold our client the truck it should be suing General Motors.  You can read the court decision here which rejected General Motors argument.

Super Lawyers named Chicago business dispute lawyers Peter Lubin a Super Lawyer and Patrick Austermuehle a Rising Star in the Categories of Class Action, Business Litigation, and Consumer Rights Litigation. Lubin Austermuehle’s Chicago auto fraud lawyers near Oak Brook and Naperville have over thirty years of experience in litigating auto fraud, franchise and dealer termination, breach of contract, complex class action, copyright, partnership, and shareholder oppression suits, non-compete agreement, trademark and libel suits, consumer rights and many different types of business and commercial litigation disputes.  Our Vernon Hills and Wheaton car fraud attorneys near Chicago litigate CPO fraud cases and rebuilt wreck and flood vehicle cases against used car dealers and automobile manufacturers. We also assist Chicago, Evanston and Oak Brook area used car consumers who are victims of fraud and consumer fraud. You can contact us by calling at 630-333-0333.  You can also contact us online here.

|

Chicgo-non-compete-agreement-and-Chicago-trade-secret-lawyers-300x115After a forensic document examiner wrote an article on the evaluation of qualifications and credentials in his profession for a trade publication, the nonprofit credentialing organization that was mentioned in the article sued the author and the publisher of the publication for defamation. The nonprofit argued that the article was defamatory and also singled out one of its members for special criticism. The district court dismissed the case, finding that the article was not defamatory, as it contained only opinions. An appellate court ruled in favor of the author and publisher, finding that the article represented the opinions of the author and that it was not possible to read the article as containing assertions of fact subject to verification. The appellate court determined that the district court did not err in finding that the article was not defamatory, even though it found that the author of the article should have disclosed his relationship to the credentialing organization that he promoted in his article.

The Board of Forensic Document Examiners is a nonprofit organization that administers a certification program for forensic document examiners. Certified examiners analyze and compare handwriting and provide expert testimony in judicial proceedings. The Board has certified about a dozen examiners. Continue reading ›

|

Buying cars that are “certified pre-owned” (CPO) has long been a way for consumers to get a car they know they can rely upon without having to pay the high prices associated with cars that come right off the lot. Because CPO models tend to go for a lower price than brand new cars, Volkswagen Group of America and Audi of America allegedly decided to sell pre-production models of some of their cars and label them “CPO,” according to a new consumer lawsuit. The proposed class action alleges the cars that were sold to American buyers did not meet U.S. motor vehicle regulations, meaning they posed a safety risk to American consumers.

Michael J. Melkersen is an attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of consumers in the states of Colorado, New Jersey, and Washington. Motley Rice LLC is also providing representation for consumers in this proposed class action lawsuit, which has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Melkersen said in a statement that, in addition to allegedly committing fraud by selling vehicles that had not passed U.S. safety regulations, the two car companies and their German parent companies had allegedly furthered their misconduct by trying to cover it up when they allegedly lied about the mileage on the vehicles, including allegedly using a secret data feed, which it sent to Carfax so it would show a misleading report of the car’s mileage. Continue reading ›

|

A jury has ordered Oberlin College to pay more than $44 million in actual and punitive damages after finding that the college defamed a local bakery, an Oberlin Ohio institution in business since 1885, and its owners and inflicted emotional distress on them.

The jury’s award followed a six-week trial that detailed each minute of a bitter saga that began in November 2016 with the arrests of three black Oberlin students at Gibson’s Bakery near the college’s campus in Oberlin, Ohio. The plaintiffs in the libel suit were Gibson’s Bakery and its owners.

According to court records, a black Oberlin College student attempted to purchase wine with a fake ID. Allyn Gibson, a relative of one of the owners, suspected the student was attempting to steal wine and chased after and detained the student after he attempted to flee. The other two students intervened and all three students were subsequently arrested.

When news broke of the incident, some students of Oberlin College arranged a protest of the bakery accusing the bakery’s owners of racism. According to the complaint, Oberlin College staff, including deans and professors, engaged in the protests as well. Students of the college also petitioned the college to cut all ties with the bakery.

The defamation claims surrounded a flier that the plaintiffs alleged the Oberlin Vice President and Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo and other college staff members participated in creating and disseminating to the community and the media that contained libelous statements accusing Gibson’s Bakery of being a “RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION” and urged people not to buy from the bakery. The flier also listed a number of the bakery’s competitors and urged individuals to patronize those businesses instead. A copy of the complaint, including the flier, is available here. Continue reading ›

|

The Illinois Supreme Court entered an interim suspension order against attorney Joel Brodsky prohibiting him for practicing law in Illinois until further order of the Court.  You can view the order here.

You can view the brief of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission filed in support of the order here.

In opposing his possible suspension in a brief to the Supreme Court, Brodsky continued to attempt to advance his “blame his victims” defense. Those victims are the Plaintiff’s counsel and the Plaintiff’s expert witness in the Twyman case. Brodsky claimed he was justified in his attack on Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff’s expert in direct contradiction of the findings made by Judge Kendall at the evidentiary hearing on sanctions rejecting those claims, and despite the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Executive Committee of the Northern District of Illinois affirming Judge Kendall’s decision. The Executive Committee suspended Brodsky from federal court for a year (which it later reduced to 6 months) finding that the evidence presented at the sanctions hearing in Twyman in support of suspension was “clear and convincing”.  You can view that order here.

Continue reading ›

|

In most cases, when an insurance company has a duty to defend an insured, the insurance company gets to pick the attorney that defends the business or individual being sued. Insurance companies often use what is known as “panel counsel,” an attorney or law firm that an insurance company regularly uses to represent its insureds.  Many times, the interests of the insurance company and the insured are aligned: resolve the case for the least amount of money possible. But sometimes a conflict of interest exists that causes their interests to diverge. In such instances, the insured is generally entitled to select its own attorney and the insurance company still has to pay the reasonable cost of defense. What circumstances constitute a conflict of interest though? In Xtreme Protection Services, LLC v. Steadfast Ins. Co., the First District found that the possibility of a large award of punitive damages created a conflict of interest that entitled the insured to select its own independent attorneys.

In October 2016, Xtreme Protection Services, LLC (“Xtreme”) was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by David Isreal which alleged claims of assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress among other causes of action. The plaintiff alleged that Xtreme, acting though one of its employees, placed listening devices in Mr. Isreal’s office, attached GPS devices to his vehicle, and sent him numerous harassing text messages. The plaintiff sought compensatory damages of $120,000 and more than $4 million in punitive damages.

Xtreme, a security services company, had an “armed security services” liability policy issued by Steadfast Insurance Company (“Steadfast”). The policy included an indemnity for bodily injury and property damage but expressly excluded coverage for intentional conduct and punitive damages. After being sued, Xtreme retained an attorney who tendered the complaint to Steadfast for coverage. Steadfast advised that it would retain its own counsel to defend Xtreme. Steadfast then retained counsel for Xtreme under a reservation of rights based on the punitive damages exclusion and on the basis that the underlying complaint alleged intentional conduct. Xtreme notified Steadfast that it did not want to be represented by Steadfast’s selected counsel due to a conflict of interest between Steadfast and Xtreme.

Xtreme later filed suit against Steadfast seeking a declaration that Xtreme was entitled to select its own counsel because of the conflict of interest caused by the possibility of a large punitive damages award. Steadfast sought its own declaration that it no longer had a duty to defend Xtreme because Xtreme had breached its duty to cooperate with Steadfast. After cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, the trial judge found that the conflict of interest caused by the potential of a large punitive damages award in the underlying lawsuit entitled Xtreme to select its own counsel. Continue reading ›

|

Non-compete agreements were originally intended to prevent high-level executives from taking trade secrets and client relationships to a competitor, but companies have recently been expanding their use of non-compete agreements to almost all their employment contracts, even with workers earning minimum wage. It has become a way to lock low-wage employees into their current jobs because the terms of their non-compete contract often make it impossible for them to find work in a related field.

At the same time, while non-compete agreements might not do much harm to employees at the executive level because they have more bargaining power, workers at the lower levels often have little-to-no bargaining power and are often unaware of their options when it comes to their employment contracts. Whether that means negotiating the terms of their contract, or recognizing when the contract is invalid, low-wage workers tend to have fewer options than those higher up the ladder.

While there is no federal law putting limitations on when companies can use non-compete agreements, there are a variety of state laws that either ban or limit non-compete agreements within the state. California is famous for their total ban on non-compete agreements, while other states, like Washington, have recently added limitations to when companies can use non-compete clauses and what terms can be included in those contracts. Continue reading ›

|

Contracts are ubiquitous. Every company is a party to numerous different contracts. Leases, purchase agreements, vendor agreements, supply contracts, and employment agreements are just a few of the contracts that a company typically enters in the normal course of business. The parties to a contract expect the other to live up to its obligations as set forth in the written contract. One important rule that many companies and business owners are not aware of, however, is that oral modifications to the terms of a contract can trump the written obligations in a contract, even if the contract expressly prohibits oral modifications.

The recent case of Miller UK Limited v. Caterpillar Inc. demonstrates the significant consequences of this rule. In Miller, the parties entered a written agreement in which Miller agreed that it would “not disclose to Caterpillar any confidential or proprietary information unless our two companies otherwise first agree in writing.” Subsequently, at a meeting between the companies, the parties orally agreed to keep any information shared at the meeting confidential. At that same meeting, Miller shared confidential and proprietary information with Caterpillar concerning technical specifications for a coupling system Miller had developed which allowed earthmover and excavator vehicles to attach shovels, buckets, and other attachments to their mechanical arms quickly without requiring the vehicle operator to leave its cab. Caterpillar later developed its own coupling system that was similar to Miller’s system.

Miller sued Caterpillar for breach of contract and violation of the Illinois Trade Secret Act (“ITSA”). A jury ultimately awarded Miller $16 million on its breach of contract claim and $74.6 million on its ITSA claim. After trial, Caterpillar sought to have the verdict vacated. Caterpillar argued that none of the information Miller shared at the meeting could be considered confidential because the parties’ written contract prohibited sharing confidential or proprietary information without first entering a written nondisclosure agreement. Consequently, Caterpillar argued, because the information was shared without such an agreement, Miller could not as a matter of law prove a trade secret misappropriation claim under ITSA—as proof that the plaintiff took appropriate steps to keep a trade secret confidential is a requirement of an ITSA claim. Continue reading ›

|

Chicgo-non-compete-agreement-and-Chicago-trade-secret-lawyers-300x115A doctor who owned her own practice, billed her patients directly, and filed taxes as a self-employed physician was not an employee of the hospital she had privileges at, and therefore was not entitled to sue the hospital for discrimination after it revoked her practice privileges.

For almost 13 years, Dr. Yelena Levitin performed surgeries at Northwest Community Hospital in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Levitin is a female, Jewish surgeon of Russian descent. She owns and operates Chicago Surgical Clinic, Ltd., a private medical practice. From 2000 until 2013, most of her revenue came from the work she performed at Northwest.

In 2008, Levitin complained to Northwest that Dr. Daniel Conway, another surgeon, was harassing her. Levitin alleged that Conway repeatedly criticized her medical decisions, undermined her in front of her patients, and interrupted one of her surgeries. Northwest reprimanded Conway, and the harassment stopped in January 2009. After that, at least four doctors filed complaints concerning Levitin’s professional judgment. Another refused to work with Levitin entirely. The head of pathology complained that Levitin habitually requested inappropriate tests from his department. In response to the complaints, Dr. William Soper, then the chair of Northwest’s surgery department, informed Levitin that he would begin proactively reviewing the surgeries she scheduled for potential issues.

Soper also reviewed Levitin’s prior surgeries. He referred 31 cases to the Medical Executive Committee, which oversees physician credentialing at Northwest. The committee found that Levitin deviated from the appropriate standard of care in four of the cases. The committee initially determined that Levitin should receive quarterly reviews, but it reconvened after Levitin operated on a patient without proper sedation. At this meeting, the committee decided to revoke Levitin’s practice privileges. Levitin appealed the committee’s decision but was unsuccessful in getting her privileges reinstated. 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