Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Consumer contracts need to be simplified.

Our Chicago consumer lawyers handle individual and class action predatory lending, mortgage fraud, unfair debt collection, lemon law and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our Chicago consumer lawyers have been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso-Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers' rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.

Our Waukegan, Lombard, Mokena and Chicago consumer attorneys provide assistance in fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago consumer law attorneys who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, predatory lending, mortgage and real-estate fraud, wage claims, unpaid overtime and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

The following story appeared on a Houston television station about debt a collection harrassment lawsuit resulting in a $1.5 million damages award.

The harassing and threatening voicemail messages left on Allen Jones' mobile phone are nothing short of vulgar.

"This shouldn't be tolerated," he said. "Nobody should have to experience what I had to experience."

Debt collectors from Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC left eight messages for Jones in August 2007 trying to collect what it said he owed on a credit card.

Most messages were laced with profanity and spewed racial slurs:

"This is your mother******* wake-up call you little lazy a** b****," a collector said on one. "Get your mother******* n****r ass up and go pick some mother******* cotton fields."

Jones is African-American.

"If we did not have tapes, no one would ever believe that this happened," Mark Frenkel, one of Jones' attorneys said.

The recordings are so offensive News 8 decided against publishing transcripts of the others.

"This is absolutely, without a doubt, the most egregious collection case I've ever seen," Dean Malone, Jones' other attorney, added.

Jones sued Advanced Call Center Technologies over the harassing calls.

Friday afternoon, a Dallas County jury awarded him one of the biggest verdicts of its kind.

He won $50,000 in mental anguish and $1.5 million in punitive damages.

"We made a statement and the statement is we will not tolerate abusive debt collectors," Jones continued.

Frenkel and Malone said employees from Advanced Call Center Technologies confessed to the calls. It remains unclear if they're still with the company and whether it will appeal. Messages left at its headquarters were not immediately returned.

Jones always disputed the debt and claims he paid it.

The amount in question is as hard to believe as the calls themselves.

"They did this to Allen for under $200," Frenkel pointed out. "Two hundred bucks put him through this."

Now the company trying to collect money has become the one paying it out.

Our Oak Brook consumer rights private law firm handles individual and class action predatory lending, unfair debt collection, lemon law and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. The Chicago consumer attorneys at DiTommaso-Lubin are proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers' rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.

Our Naperville and Aurora consumer lawyers provide assistance in fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago consumer law lawyers who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, predatory lending, wage claims, unpaid overtime and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

One lawyer's view on four ways to fix the legal system.

Based in Chicago and Oak Brook, Illinois, DiTommaso-Lubin represents clients in business litigation throughout Illinois, the Midwest and the United States. We represent Chicago area businesses of all sizes, from family-owned small businesses to large corporations and partnerships. Our Oak Brook business attorneys also handle claims of shareholder freeze-outs and squeeze-outs as well as unfair competition, tortious interference and other business claims. If your business is facing or wants to bring a lawsuit including on online infringement and unfair defamation of your products or services, we can help. To set up a consultation with one of Chicago business law attorneys to learn more about us, please contact us online or call us toll-free at 1-877-990-4990.

What Do You Do When a Debt Collector Calls? Tips On What They Can and Cannot Do
3/10/2010
Source: By Kalamazoo Gazette staff

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lays out clear rules about what debt collectors can and can't do — and it allows you to sue if you believe your rights have been violated.

Here's what you need to know if a debt collector calls you:

Calls
Debt collectors can call only between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. They can call you at work, but have to stop if you tell them your boss doesn't approve.

You can write to a collection agency to demand it stop calling you at home, too, but that won't make a legitimate debt go away: A creditor could choose to note the debt on your credit report or seek a court judgment against you.

In writing
Within five days of contacting you by phone, the debt collector must send you a letter telling you the amount you owe, the name of the creditor you allegedly owe it to and instructions for disputing if you don't believe the debt is yours. If you get a collection call, log the date on your calendar and start looking for that letter.

Taping
If you're getting calls you believe are abusive, you might consider taping them. Most states, including Michigan, allow you to record phone calls as long as one party to the conversation (for example, you) knows the call is being recorded. A few states require everyone on the line to know. Check the rules before you tape.

Record-keeping
Getting one debt collection call could mean you're in for others. That's because debts may be resold over and over. Or if a consumer demands verification, the account may be bounced back to the original account holder, who ships it off to a new debt collector. To protect yourself, keep copies of letters, logs of calls, canceled checks or other documents relating to the account — and plan to keep them for years.

Fighting back
If you suspect a debt collector isn't playing fair, complain to both the Federal Trade Commission (1-877-382-4357) and to the [Illininos] attorney general.

You also can stop repeated or harassing calls by going to court [and hiring an attorney].

More information
The FTC's free Fair Debt Collection fact sheet is available online at this location or call 1-877-382-4357.

Calling No-Nos
Debt collectors are forbidden to:

• Harass you or people who know you.
• Talk to anyone except you (or the attorney that you designate) about the debt.
• Call people you know for any reason except to locate you.
• Physically or verbally threaten you.
• Swear at you or call you names.
• Call you repeatedly (or call you right back if you hang up on them).
• Imply they're government employees or work with government agencies.
• Say they're attorneys, if they're not.
• Falsely imply you've committed a crime (debts are civil, not criminal).
• Misrepresent the amount you owe.
• Ignore your written denial of the debt. (They need to show you proof it's yours or assure you the matter has been dropped.)

Continue reading " What Do You Do When a Debt Collector Calls? Tips On What They Can and Cannot Do " »

Our Chicago business law lawyers were very interested in a recent Supreme Court decision upholding an established standard for determining when a mutual fund’s investment advisor has breached his or her fiduciary duty to shareholders. In Jones et al. v. Harris Associates L.P., No. 08-586 (March 30, 2010), three shareholders in the Oakmark family of mutual funds sued the funds’ investment manager, Harris Associates. They alleged that Harris charged the Oakmark funds twice as much as it did other funds, but did the same work. The situation was not challenged by the funds’ board members because they were all appointed by Harris Associates, the shareholders claimed. As a result, they said, the Oakmark funds paid $37 million to $58 million more than other funds for the services of Harris Associates in just one year.

Mutual funds typically use outside investment advisors to manage all of their affairs, including picking board members. Because this creates the potential for abuse, Congress enacted the Investment Company Act of 1940 to protect mutual fund shareholders. Among other things, that act creates a fiduciary duty for investment advisors with respect to their compensation, and allows shareholders to sue if that duty was breached. The plaintiff shareholders in this case sued Harris Associates in Chicago federal court for a breach of that fiduciary duty, alleging that it charged fees disproportionate to the services rendered and that were not equivalent to fees negotiated at arm’s length. Harris Associates successfully moved for summary judgment. The trial court, applying the standard laid down in Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., 694 F. 2d 923 (CA2 1982), held that there was no evidence that the fees were outside a range that could have been produced by arm’s length negotiations.

Plaintiffs appealed to the Seventh Circuit, where their claim still failed, but for different reasons. The Seventh rejected the Gartenberg standard, saying it relied too little on markets. Instead, the panel applied a standard from trust law, saying a trustee is free to negotiate any compensation that the trust is willing to pay. Similarly, a fiduciary’s compensation need not be limited by an arbitrary cap, the panel wrote. It suggested that market forces would help keep fees reasonable and noted that comparing fees for other Harris Associates clients is unfair because different clients require different amounts of work. An investment advisor’s compensation would only be subject to interference, the Seventh wrote, if the amount was so out of the ordinary that observers might think “that deceit must have occurred, or that the persons responsible for decision have abdicated.”

After the Seventh denied an en banc rehearing, with a dissent by Judge Posner, the Supreme Court took up the case to resolve a split in the circuits over the standards used to judge breaches of the Investment Company Act. In its unanimous opinion, the court found that Gartenberg was indeed the correct standard, reversing the Seventh Circuit. That standard has been adopted by other federal appeals courts, the high court noted, as well as by the SEC. The opinion, authored by Justice Alito, quoted at length from the Second Circuit’s decision in Gartenberg, which among other things said that “[t]o be guilty of a violation of [the Act], ... the adviser-manager must charge a fee that is so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining.” This approach is consistent with other protections in the Act and the Act’s role in federal regulations.

The Seventh Circuit erred by focusing almost entirely on full disclosure to determine a breach of fiduciary duty, the Supreme Court wrote. Courts should take a more nuanced look, giving deference to well-informed, independent board decisions and avoiding over-reliance on market comparisons. Thus, the court vacated the Seventh Circuit’s decision and sent the case back to trial court.

Continue reading " Supreme Court Upholds Arm’s Length Standard for Setting Fees for Mutual Fund " »

Larry Lessig gives an interesting and entertaining lecture on how copyright law is strangling creativity on the internet:

Based in Chicago and Oak Brook, Illinois, DiTommaso-Lubin represents clients in business litigation throughout Illinois, the Midwest and the United States. We represent Chicago area businesses of all sizes, from family-owned small businesses to large corporations and partnerships. Our Oak Brook business attorneys also handle claims of trade libel and online or internet based defamation of a product, service or business, as well as unfair competition and other business claims. If your business is facing or wants to bring a lawsuit including on online infringement and unfair defamation of your products or services, we can help. To set up a consultation with one of Chicago business law attorneys to learn more about us, please contact us online or call us toll-free at 1-877-990-4990.

DiTommaso-Lubin prosecutes and defends cases involving controversies over a covenant not to compete, or other restrictive covenants and other business law issues. Our Illinois restrictive covenant attorneys represent clients in active litigation over the validity and enforcement of these covenants, as well as helping to evaluate whether litigation may arise over such a contract. With more than 25 years of experience, we have handled these claims for businesses of every size, from large corporations to family-owned businesses, as well as individual employees. Based in downtown Chicago and in Oak Brook near Naperville, Hinsdale, Wheaton and Downers Grove, our Chicago business law lawyers represent clients throughout the state of Illinois, as well as in Indiana and Wisconsin. To learn more about how our Illinois covenant not to compete lawyers can help you, please do not hesitate to contact us through our Web site or call toll-free at 1-877-990-4990.

The Illinois Attorney General has listed the top 10 consumer complaints of 2009. The Attorney General's website describes those complaints:

The intensifying home foreclosure crisis dominated Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s Top 10 Consumer Complaints for 2009. Madigan today reported that 31,264 consumers filed complaints with her Consumer Protection Division last year. The consumer debt category topped the complaints filed by Illinois consumers, including a 65 percent increase in residential mortgage-related complaints. In addition, an estimated 21,000 consumers have called the Attorney General’s Homeowner Helpline for assistance since 2008, while the Attorney General’s Consumer Fraud Bureau helped secure an estimated $23 million in mortgage-related savings, including loan modifications for at-risk borrowers, last year.

“These numbers demonstrate how this economic crisis is hitting home for tens of thousands of Illinois families,” Madigan said. “Hardworking people are struggling to make their mortgage payments on time. They’re fighting to cope with mounting debts, and they’re being targeted by con artists looking to make a quick buck. This is a challenging time, and I urge anyone who is struggling to make ends meet to contact my office to make sure that they do not become victims of fraud.”

Consumer Debt Complaints Rank First
Since 2008, complaints to Madigan’s office about consumer debt grew nearly 16.5 percent, a reflection of the increasingly dire financial constraints people in Illinois are experiencing during the economic downturn. Complaints in this top category cover a wide range of consumer debt issues, such as residential mortgages, credit card debt, and installment loan debt. Specifically, the highest reported debt-related complaints involved:

Mortgage Foreclosure
In 2009, nearly 4,000 homeowners filed residential mortgage complaints with Madigan’s office, a 65 percent increase over the previous year. In addition to the significant increase, the types of complaints reported are also transforming. In the first wave of the foreclosure, a majority of complaints reported to the Attorney General’s office came from homeowners who were placed in risky home loans that they could never afford. As the foreclosure crisis continues, Madigan said that around 2008 her office began receiving more calls from homeowners who have lost their jobs and can no longer make their mortgage payments.

Madigan has made helping homeowners stay in their homes a top priority. In October 2008, the Attorney General brokered a ground-breaking $8.7 billion settlement in her predatory lending lawsuit against Countrywide, the nation’s largest mortgage lender, that established the country’s first mandatory loan modification program. As a result of this settlement and President Obama’s subsequent HAMP program, thousands of Countrywide borrowers in Illinois, and hundreds of thousands nationwide, have been able to modify their loans and remain in their homes. During 2009, Madigan also filed suit against Wells Fargo, alleging the lender engaged in consumer fraud and illegally discriminated against African American and Latino homeowners by selling them high-cost subprime mortgage loans while white borrowers with similar incomes received lower cost loans.

The Attorney General’s office also reported an increase in complaints against mortgage rescue companies that prey on homeowners who are desperate to save their homes. In the most common form of the scam, these so-called foreclosure “rescue” businesses charge homeowners a large up-front “consulting” fee to negotiate a loan modification with the lender. But after taking the homeowners’ money, these companies actually do little or nothing to save the home, leaving homeowners in an even more difficult situation. Madigan has filed 31 lawsuits targeting mortgage rescue scams.

Madigan established the Homeowner Helpline (1-866-544-7151) in 2008 to provide direct assistance for borrowers who risk losing their homes to foreclosure. Since its inception, the helpline has received more than 21,000 calls from homeowners seeking assistance. The Attorney General’s office also has helped secured more than $21 million in loan modification savings for borrowers who were at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure over the past year. Madigan encouraged consumers who are at risk of falling behind on their mortgage payments to call her office to learn more about homeowners’ rights and the options available to them to try to save their home.

Collection Agencies
In 2009, the consumer debt complaints received by Madigan’s office included more than 1,300 reports about collection agencies, including complaints that agencies started collection efforts without verifying that the consumer actually owed the debt, attempted to collect a debt from the wrong person and used abusive tactics such as making calls to a consumer’s workplace or using threatening language.

Credit Card Companies
More than 1,000 consumers sought help from Madigan’s office for problems with their credit cards. Increasing numbers of consumers called to complain that their credit card companies added unexpected fees and charges to their monthly statements and suddenly increased the interest rate on their cards. Other consumers complained that the credit card companies suddenly reduced their credit limits. Madigan said that consumers can dispute the changes to their credit agreements directly with the credit card company or call her Consumer Fraud Bureau for assistance in disputing charges.

Identity Theft Complaints Rank Second
After calls to Madigan’s office about consumer debt, identity theft remained high on the annual list of consumer complaints, coming in at the second most-reported issue. Madigan’s office received 4,376 identity theft-related complaints in 2009. A significant number of the complaints involve:

1.Credit card complaints (1,279), including reports of the takeover of an existing credit card account by a thief and also instances of a thief opening a new credit card account in the name of an ID theft victim;
2.Utility company complaints (464), concerning fraudulent wireless or landline phone, Internet, gas, electric and water accounts opened in the ID theft victim’s name; and
3.Bank fraud complaints (437), including complaints regarding stolen checks, new bank accounts opened in an ID theft victim’s name, and fraudulent withdrawals of money from victims’ bank accounts.
Consumers brought most of these complaints to Madigan’s office by contacting her Identity Theft Hotline (1-866-999-5630). Trained advocates and attorneys staff the hotline, working with consumers one-on-one to help them take the steps necessary to report the crime to local law enforcement and financial institutions, repair their credit and prevent future problems.

The Top 10 consumer complaints for 2009 are as follows:

CATEGORY # OF COMPLAINTS
1. Consumer Debt (mortgage lending, collections, credit cards) 7,843

2. Identity Theft (fraudulent credit cards and utility accounts, bank fraud) 4,376
3. Construction Home Improvement (remodeling, roofs/gutters) 2,601
4. Telecommunications (wireless service, local phone service, cable/satellite) 2,240
5 Promotions and Schemes (sweepstakes, pyramid, work-at-home schemes) 1,689
6. Motor Vehicles/Used Auto Sales (as-is sales, financing, warranties) 1,372
7. Mail Order (Internet purchases, catalog ordering, television/radio) 1,364
8. Fraud Against Business (consulting, directories/publications) 1,135
9. Utilities (natural gas, electric, water/sewer) 843
10. Motor Vehicle/Non-Warranty Repair (collision/body, engines, tune ups) 728

Continue reading " Illinois Attorney General Lists Top Consumer Fraud Complaints " »

As Chicago business law attorneys, we were interested to see a recent appellate opinion reminding Illinois businesses that severability clauses won’t necessarily protect contract provisions from other clauses that have been voided. That was what happened in Kepple and Company, Inc. v. Cardiac, Thoracic and Endovasclar Therapies, S.C., No. 3-09-0033, Ill. 3rd. Dec. 16, 2009. In that case, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld a Peoria trial court’s ruling that an entire services contract between a medical biller and a medical corporation was void, because a fee-sharing provision violated the Medical Practice Act of 1987.

Kepple is a medical billing and collection services company. Cardiac, a medical corporation run by a single doctor, hired Kepple in 2003. Their services contract contained a fee-sharing clause allowing Kepple to retain 5% of all the money it collects for Cardiac. It also had non-compete, non-solicitation and no-hire clauses forbidding either company to solicit or hire away the other company’s employees without a release. And it had a severability clause specifying that if one part of the contract was found void, other parts should still be enforceable.

Cardiac became unhappy with Kepple’s services in mid-2006 and called a meeting on Aug. 3, 2006. Two days later, Kepple’s vice president, Debra Hawley, gave notice that she would leave on Nov. 3. Hawley was the sole person handling Cardiac’s work. Her employment contract had a non-compete clause preventing her from joining a company with 50% or more of its business from medical billing within one year of leaving Kepple. On Sept. 13, Cardiac gave notice that it was terminating its contract with Kepple as of Nov. 10. On Nov. 13, Hawley started working for Cardiac.

Kepple sued both of them when it found out and requested a preliminary injunction keeping Hawley from working at Cardiac. The trial court turned this down, finding that Hawley’s employment contract didn’t apply, since Cardiac is not a competitor to Kepple, and that the non-compete clause of the services contract was unenforceable because it had no time limit. It also found that Hawley was solicited, but not hired, while she was at Kepple, but that suing was an adequate remedy for this. An interlocutory appeal to the Third District upheld these findings.

On remand, the defendants promptly filed for summary judgment based on both courts’ findings. The trial court granted it, saying that the service contract’s fee-sharing clause violated the Act, which prohibits physicians from sharing fees with anyone other than physicians practicing in the same business. Thus, the court said, the contract was void in its entirety. And even if the contract was severable, the trial court had already found that Cardiac did not induce Hawley to leave her job at Kepple. Thus, there was no violation of the non-solicitation clause, the trial court found. Kepple appealed, arguing only the severability issue. It agreed that the Medical Practice Act banned the fee-sharing agreement, but said other provisions are severable and enforceable.

In its opinion, the Third District said that under the Second Restatement of Contracts, the essential issue was whether the voided part of the contract was an essential part of the contract. In this case, the court said “there can be no dispute” that it was. The fee-sharing clause is “the very essence” of the agreement, the court said, and thus the entire contract is void and unenforceable. That means the trial court was correct to grant summary judgment in Cardiac’s favor. With that settled, the appeals court noted that it did not have to consider the remainder of either side’s arguments. It also dismissed an argument by Kepple as waived on appeal because it was not raised in trial court.

Continue reading " Covenant Not to Compete Unenforceable Because Contract Violated Illinois Law -- Our Chicago Business Law Attorneys Defend and Prosecute Trade Secret Theft and Covenant Not Compete Lawsuits " »

If you believe you purchased a car, motorcyle, boat, or RV that is a lemon, have been a victim of auto fraud, RV fraud, boat fraud, auto dealer fraud, auto repair fraud or have been deceived into buying a flood car, rebuilt wreck or salvage vechicle DiTommaso-Lubin may be able to help rectify the problem. We or experienced co-counsel are prepared to file suit in the right case anywhere in the country. For a free consultation on your rights as an employee, contact us today.

Our Auto Dealer Fraud, Auto Repair Fraud Auto Fraud, RV Fraud, and Boat Fraud private law firm and our affliated co-counsel handle individual and class action consumer rights, lemon law, and autofraud lawsuits that government agencies and public interest law firms may decide not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso-Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to employee and consumer fraud and rip-offs, and in the right case filing employee or consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that consumers' rights are protected from unscrupulous, illegal or dishonest practices.

Our Hinsdale, Aurora, Elgin, Joiliet, and Wheaton consumer law attorneys and Chicago lemon law and auto fraud attorneys provide assistance in RV, boat, motorcyle and automobile fraud and consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago area consumer rights, predatory lending or consumer protection lawyers who can assist in auto dealer fraud, auto repair fraud, lemon law, auto fraud, RV fraud, wage claim, unfair debt collection and other consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

Our Chicago consumer rights private law firm handles individual and class action unfair debt collection and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso-Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers' rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.

Our Hinsdale, Wheaton, Naperville, Batavia and Oak Brook consumer lawyers provide assistance in fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago consumer protection lawyers who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, wage claims, unpaid overtime and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

In addition to gift card fraud, some retailers fail to honor gift cards. Our Chicago class action attorneys file suit against retailers who refuse to honor gift cards.

Our Chicago consumer rights private law firm handles individual and class action unfair debt collection and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso-Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers' rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.

Our Evanston, Highland Park and Wilmette consumer lawyers provide assistance in fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago consumer protection lawyers who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, wage claims, unpaid overtime and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

Our Chicago consumer fraud attorneys were pleased to see a recent ruling affirming real estate buyers’ right to relief, and punitive damages, after fraud by the builder. Linhart v. Bridgeview Creek Development Inc., No. 1-07-2712, (Ill. 1st May 20, 2009). Plaintiffs Ken Linhart, Beverly Linhart, Amy Gable, Jane Longo, Lloyd Clark and Diane Latta bought four townhomes in the Bridgeview subdivision in Palatine, Ill. in 1997 and 1998. All four units were part of the same building. During construction of that building, a town inspector noted that the foundation was sinking. This problem was not obvious during the pre-purchase walk-throughs, but later allegedly caused the building to sink seven to ten inches, causing cracks in the walls, slanted floors, floors and ceilings pulling apart, sticking doors and windows and flooding.

In 2001, the plaintiffs sued the developer, builder and its owner over these defects, claiming breach of implied warrant of habitability; fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment; and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. A jury trial returned a verdict of $1.38 million in compensatory damages for all plaintiffs, plus punitive damages of $5,000 plus attorney fees for each plaintiff. Defendants appealed, saying the jury’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence; the jury was improperly instructed; the six plaintiffs should have had six separate verdicts rather than one; and punitive damages were improper.

The First District started with the meatiest issue: whether the verdict itself was not supported by the evidence. On the fraud and Consumer Fraud Act claims, the defendants argued that plaintiffs should have shown that they relied on defendants’ misrepresentations when they purchased the townhouses. As to the four plaintiffs claiming common-law fraud, the court wrote, there was in fact ample evidence that they did so. The evidence in the record shows that defendants lied about the cause of cracks in the walls and the foundation, including the statement that “it’s not like the house is going to sink or anything.” Thanks to the village inspector’s report, defendants knew this was not true. Thus, the common-law fraud verdict was valid, and because common-law fraud is enough to support a Consumer Fraud Act claim, both verdicts were affirmed. The court also upheld the amount of the damages, saying qualified expert testimony supported it.

The court next examined the defendants’ argument that plaintiffs should have presented evidence for their own claims separately and received separate verdicts. It’s true that Illinois law requires separate verdicts when separate recoveries are sought, the First District wrote, but on the relevant count -- breach of implied warranty of habitability -- all of the plaintiffs presented their case as a single plaintiff, asking for repairs to the building as a whole. Thus, the ruling was affirmed. The First also rejected defendants’ arguments that the jury instructions were deficient in several ways. It did find an error in the jury instructions for breach of implied warranty of habitability, but said this error was harmless.

Last, the First District considered the issue of whether punitive damages were proper even though the plaintiffs never explicitly requested them. Punitive damages are available under the Consumer Fraud Act, the court noted, and plaintiffs asked for any relief provided by that law. Furthermore, evidence at trial showed that the defendants acted fraudulently or maliciously, as required for punitive damages, because they failed to correct a defect they knew about and intentionally misrepresented that defect to the buyers. And the trial court did not abuse its discretion, the appeals court said, because it considered both sides’ arguments and the defendants’ financial position. Thus, it upheld the punitive damages award and affirmed all of the trial court’s rulings.

Continue reading " First District Upholds Punitive Damages Award in Defective Townhouse Case " »

Below is an informative video describing lemon rights for motorcycles, cars and other products:

If you believe you purchased a motorcycle, car, rv or other product that is a lemon, have been a victim of auto fraud, auto dealer fraud, auto repair fraud or have been deceived into buying a flood car, rebuilt wreck or salvage vechicle DiTommaso-Lubin may be able to help rectify the problem. We or experienced co-counsel are prepared to file suit in the right case in the Chicago area or anywhere in the country. For a free consultation on your rights as an employee, contact us today.

Our Auto Dealer Fraud, Auto Repair Fraud Auto Fraud, RV Fraud, Motorcycle Fraud and Boat Fraud private law firm and our affliated co-counsel handle individual and class action consumer rights, lemon law, and autofraud lawsuits that government agencies and public interest law firms may decide not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso-Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to employee and consumer fraud and rip-offs, and in the right case filing employee or consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that consumers' rights are protected from unscrupulous, illegal or dishonest practices.

Our Wheaton, Oak Brook, Hinsdale and Chicago consumer law, auto fraud and lemon law lawyers and attorneys provide assistance in car, RV and automobile and consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago area consumer rights, predatory lending or consumer protection lawyers who can assist in auto dealer fraud, auto repair fraud, lemon law, auto fraud, RV fraud, wage claim, lemon law, unfair debt collection, junk fax, prerecorded telephone solicitations, and other consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

Our Naperville wage and hour rights attorneys noted a recent ruling out of Massachusetts that could be important for police officers and firefighters around the United States. In Calvao et al. v. Town of Framingham, No. 09-1648 (1st.Cir. March 17, 2010), the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that employers don’t have to notify their public safety workers when they take advantage of a special provision in the Fair Labor Standards Act that exempts them from the ordinary 40-hour work week. Instead, these employers are permitted to establish “work periods” of seven to 28 days, after which the employees must be paid overtime. The plaintiffs, a class of about 100 Framingham, Mass. police officers, believed that the Town of Framingham was not eligible for this exemption because it never “established” the work period by notifying them of its existence.

The FLSA was amended in 1966 and 1974 to apply to state and municipal workers. This triggered concerns about costs from local governments, which ended partially with Congress enacting the section of law at issue in this case, which allows a longer period before overtime is triggered, to account for the unpredictable nature of public safety work. The Town of Framingham circulated a memo in 1986 declaring that the work period for police and fire personnel was 24 days. This worked out to about 43 hours in a seven-day period before overtime was triggered. Fourteen years later, in 2000, the police officers’ union negotiated a change in schedule from four days on and two off to five days on and three off. Both fit into the 24-day schedule. In 2005, the officers brought the instant action, suing for a declaratory judgment that they had been denied overtime because the work period had never been “established” as required by federal law. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the defendants on this issue, and the officers appealed.

They had no better luck at the First Circuit, which found no evidence for their argument in the text of the statute, its legislative history or Department of Labor guidelines. The text of the law at issue does not require notice, the court wrote, or even suggest how an employer might establish its work period. The statute doesn’t explicitly prohibit giving notice, but Congress did explicitly give responsibility for enforcing FLSA regulations to the Secretary of Labor. Regulations enacted by people in that role “make it clear the Secretary rejected a notice requirement,” the court wrote. In fact, the Secretary in office at the time reviewed and rejected a proposed notice requirement, noting that the Act does not require one. In addition, legislative history shows that Congress expressly rejected a proposal to require employee agreement before the work period could be established.

Finally, the court rejected the officers’ argument that a Department of Labor letter ruling mandates a notice requirement. The issue was never brought up in district court and would be waved in any case, it wrote, but is also inappropriate for three reasons. One is that the letter never mentioned a notice requirement, instead saying that “"[a]n employer must designate or otherwise objectively establish the work period . . . and pay the affected employees in accordance with its provisions.” The letter was also responding to a specific court case raising issues not relevant in the instant action. And opinion letters don’t have the force of rulings, the court said, especially since the Secretary of Labor has already reached the opposite conclusion from the one the officers sought here. Thus, the summary judgment ruling by the district court was affirmed.

Continue reading " Public Safety Employers Need Not Notify Workers About Work Period Exemption From FLSA " »

Our Chicago business law lawyers at DiTommaso-Lubin are dedicated to helping businesses and business people in pursuing and protecting their rights in business lawsuits. To see the the wide variety of business lawsuits our Chicago business trial attorneys have handled click here. You can contact one of our Oakbrook and Chicago business law attorneys through our website by clicking here.

Debt collectors are prohibited by federal law from engaging in deception, extortion, threats, lies, and invading your privacy by calling your friends, neighbors and employers. This video exposes illegal debt collection practices and explains practices which violate the law such claiming that you owe money which is owed by others, calling your workplace and revealing the debt, or threatening to bring suit or obtain a judgment with no intent to do so. Many debt collectors are pressured to meet sales quotas and engage in abuse to make money. Debt collectors can be persistent but they can't abuse or lie to you to get the bills paid.

Our Oak Brook consumer rights private law firm handles individual and class action predatory lending, unfair debt collection, lemon law and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. The Chicago consumer attorneys at DiTommaso-Lubin are proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers' rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.

Our Waukegan and Wheaton consumer lawyers provide assistance in fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago consumer law lawyers who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, predatory lending, wage claims, unpaid overtime and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

This video provides tips for buying a car and describes some lemon law rights.

If you believe you purchased a car that is a lemon, have been a victim of auto fraud, auto dealer fraud, auto repair fraud or have been deceived into buying a flood car, rebuilt wreck or salvage vechicle DiTommaso-Lubin may be able to help rectify the problem. We or experienced co-counsel are prepared to file suit in the right case anywhere in the country. For a free consultation on your rights as an employee, contact us today.

Our Auto Dealer Fraud, Auto Repair Fraud Auto Fraud, RV Fraud, and Boat Fraud private law firm and our affliated co-counsel handle individual and class action consumer rights, lemon law, and autofraud lawsuits that government agencies and public interest law firms may decide not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso-Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to employee and consumer fraud and rip-offs, and in the right case filing employee or consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that consumers' rights are protected from unscrupulous, illegal or dishonest practices.

Our Naperville,Geneva, Wheaton, Waukegan, Oak Brook, Lombard, Hinsdale consumer law, auto fraud and lemon law lawyers and attorneys provide assistance in car, RV and automobile and consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago area consumer rights, predatory lending or consumer protection lawyers who can assist in auto dealer fraud, auto repair fraud, lemon law, auto fraud, RV fraud, wage claim, lemon law, unfair debt collection, junk fax, prerecorded telephone solicitations, and other consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

Debt collectors will go to great lenghts to trick, intimidate or exort you into paying debts. These tactics are illegal and you can file suit to stop improper debt collector harrassment. This video discusses some alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and then informs you of some of your legal rights.

Our Chicago consumer rights private law firm handles individual and class action predatory lending, unfair debt collection, lemon law and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso-Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers' rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.

Our Highland Park, Deerfield, and Barrington consumer attorneys provide assistance in fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago consumer law lawyers who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, predatory lending, wage claims, unpaid overtime and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

As Illinois and Chicago business law attorneys, we were interested to see a recent Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in an antitrust and trade libel lawsuit filed here in the Northern District of Illinois. In Tamburo v. Dworkin, 2010 WL 1387299 (C.A.7 April 8, 2010), John Tamburo and his software business filed suit against multiple defendants in the United States, Canada and Australia. Tamburo sought to pursue federal and state antitrust claims, as well as state tort claims for defamation, tortious interference with his business and civil conspiracy. He also wanted a declaratory judgment that he did not violate any federal laws. The district court dismissed all of the claims, but the Seventh reinstated some of the tort claims, reinforcing the rules for personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants, but applied to Internet-related claims.

Tamburo and his business make dog-breeding software, including an online database full of dog pedigree information. To get data for this database, he used publicly available information found on the websites of four of the defendants, dog pedigree enthusiasts in Ohio, Colorado, Michigan and Canada. These defendants reacted critically, launching a campaign of email “blasts” and website postings accusing Tamburo of theft, hacking and selling stolen goods. They urged readers to boycott his products. The Australian defendant, a software company with a similar pedigree software company, received some of these messages and reposted them to a private mailing list of dog breeders who had bought its software. Tamburo sued all of them in Chicago federal court, where the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court granted this motion as to all claims and Tamburo appealed.

The Seventh Circuit only partially agreed. Right away, it upheld the dismissal of the antitrust claims, which it said were “woefully inadequate” under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 2007), which heightened the requirements for stating a claim in a Sherman Act case. Under that decision, plaintiffs must plead believable antitrust injuries that show an anticompetitive effect, which the court said Tamburo failed to do. Tamburo’s federal pleadings are conclusory, the court wrote, failing to give any evidence of a specific antitrust injury or even what kind of violation he alleges. The state law claims have the same failings, the majority said, so both should be dismissed, but for failure to state a claim rather than lack of personal jurisdiction.

This removed the only federal claim in the case, which meant personal jurisdiction must be decided under Illinois’ long-arm statute. None of the defendants had enough contact with Illinois to create general personal jurisdiction, the majority said; in fact, the Canadian and Australian defendants had never been there. However, the court did find evidence of personal jurisdiction specific to this case. The court applied Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), in which the Supreme Court said actress Shirley Jones could assert personal jurisdiction in California over a Florida-based magazine and its writers, whom Jones accused of libel. That case gave a test to find personal jurisdiction: intentional and allegedly tortious conduct, expressly aimed at the foreign state, with the defendant’s knowledge that the plaintiff would be injured there.

The bulk of the Seventh’s analysis was aimed at the second prong -- “expressly aimed.”
The court said personal jurisdiction was appropriate for the U.S. and Canadian defendants because they were accused of disseminating information about Tamburo widely through websites and emails. In fact, the majority wrote, some of the messages gave Tamburo’s address and urged readers to harass him and boycott his product. This is enough for personal jurisdiction under the “express aiming” test. This wasn’t true of the Australian defendant, however, because the owner of the company was alleged only to have sent the information to a private mailing list -- not enough to show “express aiming” at Tamburo in Illinois.

Finally, the court examined whether jurisdiction over the individuals would “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantive justice.” It found that hearing the case in Illinois would not be unfair. The defendants have diverse citizenship, the court noted, and it would be unreasonable to ask Tamburo to sue them all separately. Illinois has a strong interest in providing a forum for residents like Tamburo to settle disputes, whereas other states have no substantial interest in the case. Thus, jurisdiction in Illinois is fair. For all of these reasons, the Seventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of the antitrust claims, upheld the dismissal of the claims against the Australian defendant and reversed the dismissal of the tort-law claims against the U.S. and Canadian defendants.

Continue reading " Seventh Circuit Finds Personal Jurisdiction in Defamation and Tortious Interference Claim " »

As Illinois wage and hour rights attorneys, we were interested in a decision establishing the scope of state courts’ right to enforce judgments obtained in other states under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause. Nazario et al. v. O.J. Thrall Inc., et al., 1996 WL 285541 (Conn.Super. 1996) allowed Puerto Rican farmworkers to enforce their default judgment against a Connecticut farm operator. The Connecticut Superior court found that because the farm operator used Puerto Rican logistic, recruitment and screening services, it had enough “minimum contact” with the territory for the Puerto Rico court to establish personal jurisdiction.

Defendant O.J. Thrall, Inc. grows tobacco in Connecticut. It recruited 51 Puerto Rican workers for its growing season through an interstate clearance system created by the federal Wagner-Peyser Act. That law also regulates working conditions and pay for domestic farmworkers, including the Puerto Rican farmworkers. The workers were in Connecticut between June 12, 1991 and July 19, 1991, when they were discharged. Upon their return, they sued Thrall in Puerto Rico Superior Court for breach of contract and the federal clearance order. That court determined that it had personal jurisdiction in the case because Thrall had done business in Puerto Rico through the Wagner-Peyser job clearance system. Thrall was properly served, but the case ended in a default judgment. The workers were awarded $2,084 each in unpaid wages and $190 each in air travel expenses, plus attorney fees.

The workers then sought to enforce their judgment in Connecticut, where Thrall had its operations. Thrall fought that action, arguing that it didn’t have sufficient minimum contacts with Puerto Rico to establish personal jurisdiction. The Connecticut Superior Court started by noting that this was an issue of first impression in the state, as the only previous Wagner-Peyser Act case had to do with subject matter jurisdiction. The Constitution requires state courts to give one another’s decisions “full faith and credit,” it noted, but also limits their personal jurisdiction over nonresidents through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It first took up Thrall’s argument that the clearance orders it extended under Wagner-Peyser were not offers of employment, as required to establish “minimum contacts” with Puerto Rico. The Connecticut court rejected that argument. Of the 12 cases it found in the United States and Puerto Rico that discussed whether a clearance order is an offer of employment or a contract, only two declined to make such a finding. One declined to make any finding on the subject, while another found that another contract was the controlling contract. Furthermore, the court wrote, the clearance order specifically said it “describes the actual terms and conditions of the employment being offered by me and contains all the material terms and conditions of the job,” followed by the signature of Thrall’s Vice President. For those reasons, the court found that the clearance order was a unilateral contract containing an offer of employment.

The court next addressed Thrall’s argument that the local Department of Labor office in Yauco, Puerto Rico, which recruited the workers, was not Thrall’s agent and had no authority from the company. Under Connecticut caselaw, the court said, it must review whether the Wagner-Peyser Act creates an agency relationship between firms and the federal Department of Labor. This Depression-era law allowed the federal government to establish employment offices giving preference to U.S. and Puerto Rico workers over foreign workers. When hiring the workers, the court wrote, Thrall delegated its hiring authority to the Yauco office, specifically referring workers to that office rather than merely using it as a referral source. This established an agency relationship between the Yauco DOL and Thrall, the court wrote. However, the office was not under Thrall’s control, the court said, citing caselaw from around the U.S. Thus, the agency relationship was implied, not stautory. However, this was still sufficient to establish jurisdiction.

Finally, the court addressed Thrall’s argument that it had transacted no business in Puerto Rico, aside from the clearance order it was required by law to file in order to use the foreign worker program. In support, it cited a dissent from a New York case with similar facts, Rios v. Altamont Farms, Inc., 100 A.D.2d 405, 475 N.Y.S.2d 520 (N.Y.A.D.1984), which allowed Puerto Rico courts personal jurisdiction over a New York apple grower. In that case, the court wrote, the facts satisfied both parts of the two-part test laid down by the Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). The defendants used Puerto Rico services with certain awareness that their job offers would be extended in the territory, satisfying the “minimum contact” requirement. Jurisdiction was fair because a hearing in Puerto Rico imposed less burden on the defendant than a mainland hearing would impose on plaintiffs, whom the government has an interest in protecting. All of these considerations applied to the instant case as well, the court said. Thus, the judgment may be enforced against Thrall in Connecticut.

Continue reading " Connecticut Court Agrees to Enforce Default Labor Rights For Tobacco Farmworkers Judgment From Puerto Rico " »