News

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[03/15] Kim v. Carter's Inc.
In plaintiffs' suit against a children's clothing retailer for damages under Illinois contract and consumer protection law, claiming they were victims of deceptive pricing, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) with respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, defendant has fulfilled its obligations under the straightforward, everyday sales contract described in the complaint; and 2) plaintiffs' allegations fail to establish the actual damages element of their Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act (ICFA) claim.

[03/15] N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.
In an action by a barge operator against an insurer for defense costs associated with Hurricane Katrina-related damages, the district court's order (1) dismissing all causes of action brought against defendant, (2) granting plaintiff the fees and expenses of two of the three law firms it retained to defend Katrina-related actions, and (3) denying plaintiff's motion to transfer and its application for attorneys' fees, is affirmed in part where: 1) the locus of operative facts as well as the interests of efficiency and fairness favored a New York forum; 2) the term "otherwise" in the insurance policy did not include the kind of relationship associated with a shipowner's bailment to a terminal operator, which was at issue in this case; 3) plaintiff did not have a right to pursue independent counsel to defend the Katrina actions whose legal fees would be covered by the primary policy; 4) because summary judgment in favor of defendant was warranted based on the simple non-coverage of the barge under the policy, and because there was no dispute that the primary policy had been exhausted, the excess policy applied to cover expenses in excess of the primary policy's limits. However, the order is vacated in part where coverage for fees earned by both counsel, either as excess to defendant's primary policy or as initial coverage for plaintiff's independent counsel, was intended pursuant to the umbrella coverage provided by the excess policy.

[03/12] Holschen v. Int'l. Union of Painters
In an action by a former union painter against the union alleging several violations of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), as well as a state law claim for intentional interference with a valid business expectancy, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) this was not a situation where the circumstances themselves presented a significant danger of bias such that plaintiff was excused from presenting at least some evidence of actual bias involving one or more trial board members in order to survive summary judgment; 2) evidence of ad hoc retaliation by an individual union member did not state a cause of action for a free speech violation under the LMRDA; and 3) there was no evidence the union itself formally disciplined plaintiff in retaliation for his exercise of free speech rights.

[03/12] Alexander v. Cahill
In a First Amendment challenge to attorney advertising rules issued by the New York Appellate Division barring, inter alia, testimonials from clients relating to pending matters, portrayals of judges or fictitious law firms, attention-getting techniques unrelated to attorney competence, and trade names or nicknames that imply an ability to get results, and establishing a thirty-day moratorium for targeted solicitation following a specific incident, including targeted ads on television or in other media, summary judgment order invalidating most of the content-based restrictions and upholding the thirty-day moratorium is affirmed in part where the content-based restrictions in the disputed provisions regulated commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the prohibition on advertising mentioning fictitious firms was valid because it targeted potentially misleading advertising; and 2) as to the moratorium, there was a substantial state interest in protecting the privacy and tranquility of personal injury victims and their loved ones against intrusive, unsolicited contact by lawyers.

[03/11] Granfield v. CSX Transp., Inc.
In plaintiff's action against his employer in violations of the Federal Employer's Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Ac, claiming that he developed "tennis elbow" as a result of having to manipulate defective controls in the cabin of his locomotive, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a reasonable jury could have concluded that plaintiff's claim was not time barred, had defendant chosen to contest this showing by asking the jury instruction and arguing the matter to the jury; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a doctor as an expert on the issue of causation; 3) brief statements by a witness as to the contents of a letter was harmless error; and 4) plaintiff's counsel's statements in closing arguments were adequately dealt with by the district judge's instructions and no plain error occurred.

Read More

Legal Malpractice

[03/11] Freedman v. Brutzkus
In plaintiff's action for fraud against defendants, trial court's dismissal of the action following the sustaining of defendants' demurrer is affirmed as a signature of an attorney under the legend "approved as to form and content" on a contract does not amount to an actionable representation to an opposing party's attorney that can provide a basis for tort liability.

[03/04] Aills v. Boemi
In plaintiff's medical malpractice suit against defendant plastic surgeon arising out of negligence in connection with an elective surgical procedure for breast reconstruction, the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeal is quashed and remanded as the district court erred in reversing for a new trial on the basis of an improper argument by plaintiff's counsel during closing argument.

[03/03] Willis v. Bender
In an action for lack of informed consent and medical malpractice, judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where there was no evidence, specifically expert testimony, that another physician was negligent and therefore no basis to hold defendant liable for his negligence. However, the judgment is reversed in part where defendant's alleged misrepresentations to plaintiff in response to her direct questions allegedly induced her to consent to the surgery and its risks, and under those circumstances, if proved, her consent could hardly be considered "informed".

[03/03] Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman
In an appeal involving defendants' anti-SLAPP special motion to strike (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16) plaintiff-former client's suit for various causes of action including breach of fiduciary duty, arising from defendants' prior representation in connection with plaintiff's efforts to redevelop real estate it owned in Beverly Hills, trial court's conclusion that section 425.16 did not apply because the gravamen of the action was breach of an attorney's duties of loyalty and confidentiality is reversed as all causes of action in the complaint arose from acts in furtherance of protected activity, and plaintiff could not show a probability of prevailing at trial.

[03/02] Davis v. Brouse McDowell, LPA
In plaintiff's legal malpractice suit claiming that defendants failed to timely file three patent applications related to a website-search engine, summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court exercised proper jurisdiction over plaintiff's malpractice cause of action; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in striking portions of the supplemental affidavit of plaintiff's patent law expert; and 3) plaintiff failed to introduce evidence sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the patentability of her inventions.

Read More

Professional Malpractice

[03/11] Freedman v. Brutzkus
In plaintiff's action for fraud against defendants, trial court's dismissal of the action following the sustaining of defendants' demurrer is affirmed as a signature of an attorney under the legend "approved as to form and content" on a contract does not amount to an actionable representation to an opposing party's attorney that can provide a basis for tort liability.

[03/04] Aills v. Boemi
In plaintiff's medical malpractice suit against defendant plastic surgeon arising out of negligence in connection with an elective surgical procedure for breast reconstruction, the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeal is quashed and remanded as the district court erred in reversing for a new trial on the basis of an improper argument by plaintiff's counsel during closing argument.

[03/03] Willis v. Bender
In an action for lack of informed consent and medical malpractice, judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where there was no evidence, specifically expert testimony, that another physician was negligent and therefore no basis to hold defendant liable for his negligence. However, the judgment is reversed in part where defendant's alleged misrepresentations to plaintiff in response to her direct questions allegedly induced her to consent to the surgery and its risks, and under those circumstances, if proved, her consent could hardly be considered "informed".

[03/03] Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman
In an appeal involving defendants' anti-SLAPP special motion to strike (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16) plaintiff-former client's suit for various causes of action including breach of fiduciary duty, arising from defendants' prior representation in connection with plaintiff's efforts to redevelop real estate it owned in Beverly Hills, trial court's conclusion that section 425.16 did not apply because the gravamen of the action was breach of an attorney's duties of loyalty and confidentiality is reversed as all causes of action in the complaint arose from acts in furtherance of protected activity, and plaintiff could not show a probability of prevailing at trial.

[03/02] Davis v. Brouse McDowell, LPA
In plaintiff's legal malpractice suit claiming that defendants failed to timely file three patent applications related to a website-search engine, summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court exercised proper jurisdiction over plaintiff's malpractice cause of action; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in striking portions of the supplemental affidavit of plaintiff's patent law expert; and 3) plaintiff failed to introduce evidence sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the patentability of her inventions.

Read More