Articles Posted in Best Business And Class Action Lawyers Near Chicago

As a firm of Chicago and Orland Park business attorneys, DiTommaso Lubin handles litigation for companies in a wide range of industries. Our Schaumburg business lawyers recently came across a case from St. Clair county that is of interest to LLC’s and those businesses who include arbitration clauses in their business agreements.

The Plaintiff in Trover v. 419 OCR, Inc. was a member of a limited liability company, Fair Oaks Development Group LLC (FODG) that planned to develop the land owned by FODG. Plaintiff was advised by counsel that the company would benefit from a tax perspective should the company transfer its interest in the land to Defendant 419 OCR, Inc. and allow that company to develop the land. Relying upon that alleged tax advice and the representations of Defendant, Plaintiff allegedly allowed FODG to sell and assign its interest in the land to Defendant 419 OCR, Inc., who later transferred parts of the land to Defendant O’Fallon Group. The sale was executed by a written agreement, but Plaintiff alleged that there was an additional oral agreement between the parties that was never put in writing. Under this oral agreement, Defendants were allegedly to pay Plaintiff a to-be-determined sum of money in addition to the price of the land. Defendants eventually developed the land and made a profit, but allegedly never paid any of the sums from the oral agreement.

Plaintiff then filed a shareholder derivative action on behalf of FODG alleging breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and corporate waste. Defendants filed a motion to compel binding arbitration based upon the arbitration provisions contained within the operating agreement governing FODG. The trial court denied the Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, and in response, Defendants filed for an interlocutory appeal on the arbitration issue.

The Appellate Court performed a de novo review of the motion to compel arbitration because the trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing or make any factual findings. The Court examined the operating agreements that contained the arbitration provisions and found that, while the land transaction in question fell within the scope of the provisions, Defendants 419 OCR and the O’Fallon Group were not parties to those agreements and therefore were not bound by them. Thus, the Court upheld the trial court’s denial of arbitration for the breach of contract claims as to those two Defendants.

Next, the Court examined whether the claims for breach of fiduciary duty brought on behalf of FODG were bound by the arbitration clauses. The Court found that FODG was not a party to its own operating agreement because no signatories on the agreements indicated that they were signing on behalf of the LLC. As such, the claims brought on behalf of FODG were not bound by the arbitration clause and the Court denied the motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty claims. The Court then reversed the trial court’s denial as to the fraud cause of action because the individual Defendants and Plaintiff both signed the operating agreement and were bound by the arbitration provision contained therein.

Trover v. 419 OCR, Inc. contains important information for limited liability companies and the members of those organizations. The holding in this case indicates that an arbitration clause in the operating agreement of an LLC can only be enforced against those who were party, or are successor in interest to a party to the agreement. Additionally, it is important to note that an LLC itself is not a party to its own operating agreement without express language indicating that it is.

Continue reading ›

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.

Rihanna – S&M by jimihubabua

NPR reports on a very interesting recently filed law suit regarding allegations that the pop singer Rhianna’s latest video crosses the line an plagiarizes the photo images of David LaChapelle and thus violates copyright law. The story states:

Fashion photographer David LaChapelle is known for staging photo shoots with lots of bright colors, outrageous costumes, and sexy, surreal images. …

When compared side-by-side, the video does bear striking similarities to the photos LaChapelle claims were plagiarized. In once scene, Rihanna lies semi-nude on a table, surrounded by reporters in clown wigs. The corresponding LaChapelle photo depicts a woman lying in a hospital bed, also half-naked and also surrounded by clowns in business attire.

In his complaint against Rihanna, LaChapelle alleges, “Defendants are wrongly implying to the public that plaintiff was involved in the creation of the Music Video or that plaintiff has endorsed, approved or otherwise consented to its creation.”

You can read or listen to the entire story by clicking here.

Continue reading ›

DiTommaso Lubin’s Chicago business trial lawyers have more than two and half decades of experience helping business clients on unraveling complex business fraud and breach of fiduciary duty cases. Our Chicago business law attorneys work with skilled forensic accountants and certified fraud examiners to help recover monies missappropriated from our clients. Our Chicago business, commercial, and class-action litigation lawyers represent individuals, family businesses and enterprises of all sizes in a variety of legal disputes, including disputes among partners and shareholders as well as lawsuits between businesses and and consumer rights, auto fraud, and wage claim individual and class action cases. In every case, our goal is to resolve disputes as quickly and sucessfully as possible, helping business clients protect their investements and get back to business as usual. From offices in Oak Brook, near Wheaton and Naperville, our Chicago business lawyers serve clients throughout Illinois and the Midwest.

If you’re facing a business or class-action lawsuit, or the possibility of one, and you’d like to discuss how the experienced Illinois business dispute attorneys at DiTommaso Lubin can help, we would like to hear from you. To set up a consultation with one of our Chicago and Woodstock business trial attorneys and class action and consumer trial lawyers, please call us toll-free at 630-333-0333 or contact us through the Internet.

 

Our Illinois covenant not to compete attorneys were interested to see a ruling in a long-running contract dispute between three Madison County doctors. The Fifth District Court of Appeals has given a green light to a lawsuit over a covenant not to compete. The Madison St. Clair Record reported July 1 that the court allowed Dr. Tina Gingrich to pursue a non-compete lawsuit against her former business partner, Dr. Christina Midkiff. At issue is a covenant in the stock purchase agreement of their former corporation, Tina M. F. Gingrich, M.D., P.C., doing business as Maryville Women’s Center, an ob-gyn practice. The covenant said Midkiff and a third partner, Dr. Marlene Freeman, were not permitted to open a competing ob-gyn practice within 20 miles of Maryville Women’s Center for five years.

The underlying facts are complicated. Midkiff and Freeman joined Gingrich’s practice in the late 1990s, entering into a stock purchase agreement that gave them one-third of the shares each. That agreement also contained the covenant not to compete at issue here, as well as a provision giving Gingrich veto power. The three doctors later disagreed over issues not specified, and in 2002, Midkiff and Freeman sued Gingrich for several causes of action, including shareholder relief and a declaratory judgment that the covenant not to compete was unenforceable. Gingrich countersued and later filed a notice of stock sale offering to buy out the shares owned by the other two. That offer used a formula rather than a dollar amount to determine what she would pay for the shares. For that reason, the trial court granted a motion to strike her notice.

Gingrich filed an interlocutory appeal, and the resulting 2005 Fifth District opinion established that a formula is a valid way to offer to buy stock under the Business Corporations Act. The case was sent back to trial court, but before the court could complete its bench trial, Midkiff and Freeman sold Gingrich their shares. Midkiff started her own practice in Maryville on the first day of 2007, bringing her staff from the Maryville Women’s Center. Later that January, the trial court determined how much Gingrich should pay for Midkiff’s shares. It also refused to enforce the covenant not to compete against Midkiff, as to work she had done at a local hospital. Shortly afterward, Gingrich filed the instant lawsuit, seeking to enforce the covenant not to compete as to both the hospital and Midkiff’s new office in Maryville. The trial court dismissed the case, saying the issue had already been decided, and Gingrich appealed to the Fifth District again.

According to the Record, the Fifth District reversed that trial court ruling in June. For the majority, Justice Wexstten wrote that Gingrich’s breach of contract claim had not been decided in the prior suit, which he said had to do with the valuation of the stock shares Gingrich was trying to purchase. The decision did not enforce the non-compete clause, and in fact, the justices specifically said they made no ruling as to whether the clause was reasonable. Instead, their ruling sends the case back down to the trial court for a decision.

Continue reading ›

A federal court in Kansas denied Bank of America motion to dismiss an unpaid overtime lawsuit brought by the Bank’s call center employees.

The call center employees claim Bank of America forced them to work without pay during meal breaks and before and after their regular hours due to laying off too many employees and under staffing decisions designed to lower costs and increase the Bank’s profits. The lawsuits brings class-action claims under the laws of different states and collective action claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

To read the Court’s opinion click here.

 

The U.S. District Court for Minnesota is hearing a test case for how restrictive covenants are affected by social media. Our Chicago restrictive covenant litigation lawyers were extremely interested to read about TEKSystems, Inc. v. Hammernick in a June 15 ComputerWorld article. According to the article, information technology staffing firm TEKSystems is suing a former employee who once helped recruit IT professionals for the company to place at other businesses. That former employee, Brelyn Hammernick, is accused of violating her non-solicitation, non-compete and non-disclosure agreements with TEKSystems through her use of the social media website LinkedIn. The company claims Hammernick violated her agreements by connecting with at least 20 TEKSystems contract employees, among other things. Other defendants are Horizontal Integration, Hammernick’s new company, and two colleagues who moved there from TEKSystems, Quinn VanGorden and Michael Hoolihan.

According to the federal complaint, Hammernick signed an agreement not to work for a competitor of TEKSystems for 18 months after leaving her job there and within a 50-mile radius of the company’s Edina, Minnesota office. The agreement also restricted her from recruiting employees and clients of TEKSystems for the same 18-month period, including people who had been contract employees for up to two years beforehand, and from revealing the company’s confidential information. The complaint accuses Hammernick of violating all three provisions after moving to Horizontal Integration, a direct competitor. In addition to connecting with former colleagues on LinkedIn, the company accuses her and her two colleagues of using their knowledge of TEKSystems’ clients to solicit them for Horizontal Integration and soliciting several contract employees to move to Horizontal Integration. TEKSystems asked for substantial financial damages as well as injunctions enforcing the restrictive covenants.

This case contains numerous more conventional restrictive covenant issues, but our Illinois non-compete litigation attorneys are also very interested in the novel issue of whether social media contact is in itself a violation of a non-solicitation clause. Without knowing more about the situation, we suspect that the district court will not accept this argument. In itself, connecting with someone on LinkedIn or another social networking site does nothing more than give both people access to each other’s contact information. This could be considered an “electronic Rolodex,” and no court would uphold a non-solicitation agreement that requires an ex-employee to discard her Rolodex. In fact, the language of the agreement, as laid out in the complaint, prohibits contact with TEKSystems employees only for the purpose of soliciting them away from the company. For this reason, we think TEKSystems will have an uphill battle on that claim.

Continue reading ›

Contact Information