Articles Posted in Best Business And Class Action Lawyers Near Chicago

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency which is an electronic form of cash. It is decentralized without the need for a central bank or administrator. The need for an intermediary is none, as it can be sent
from user-to-user. Since its technology is relatively new, litigation surrounding this type of exchange is being closely followed by those who have invested in it and those who are wanting
to know of the direction of the future in exchange. Of course, it would not be long until the way transactions took place would be tested in the courts on an international and local level.
Since its reach has no real boundaries, we will look to a decision held in Shenzhen, China. A ruling was made involving the dispute over an equity transfer case. The matter then went before
the International Court of Arbitration. The currencies that the case concerned included: Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin Diamond. There was so much of a buzz that the decision generated
that the Cryptocurrency news provider posted:

“Chinese court confirms Bitcoin protected by law. Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration ruled a case involving cryptos. Inside the verdict: CN law does not forbid owning & transferring bitcoin, which should be protected by law bc its property nature and economic value.”

The case, therefore, has reached to affect property and economic rights as viewed by the law. How it affects us here in the USA is yet to be seen. The decision applied followed a ruling held
in Moscow. The very classification of Bitcoin and other digital currencies as “property” could even lead to tax implications. Let’s remember this: Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are not
considered currencies, and are not backed by the government or law. However, they are not illegal. That is the backdrop that is being worked within the dealing with the relatively new medium
of exchange. Basically, the ruling means that there is no prohibition against Bitcoin ownership and transfer in China. Continue reading ›

A suburban business in Chicago is under scrutiny for implementation of a system in which the way the business allegedly sterilized caused emissions of a cancer-causing substance. The operational facility provides sterilization services to the medical, pharmaceutical and food industries.  Ironically, the health damage by its emissions cause might make locals worse off.

Consequently, a change was made to equipment that was being used had been installed.  Governor Bruce Rauner then, eventually, requested closing the plant completely which was also co-owned by his former private equity firm.  It was not looking good on him and locals were very angry.  Whether or not, and the type of action that would have been taken in circumstances, but for, that situation are not known. Local politicians added pressure and since we are dealing with cancer, people are not taking this issue lightly at all.

Right now, as it stands, the Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, believed that further investigations of air quality with analysis by experts would be necessary in order to make a case.  Perhaps, the one-off situation is not enough to gauge that there has been negligence or any breach that is substantial.  This would constitute as information that only a state or federal Environmental Protection Agency would be able to give in such circumstances.

It was the likelihood of the emissions ranged from “probably carcinogenic” to “carcinogenic to humans,” that became grounds for tests to be expedited.  It is speculated that the new system is less harmful, but can the damage be reversed?  Even a reduction by 90 percent cannot do much to whatever is out there in the atmosphere.  These issues are problematic, affect multiple residents’ health and will require in-depth investigation.  A school is even within the vicinity of impact.  If a class action arises, this will be one not taken lightly. Continue reading ›

A plaintiff’s attorney in New York recently challenged a federal court’s authority to order him to pay a $10,000 fine as a sanction for misconduct under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a copyright infringement case. Southern District of New York Judge Denise Cote imposed the monetary sanction on attorney Richard L. pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules and the court’s inherent authority to manage its own affairs (Paul Steeger v. JMS Cleaning Services, LLC).

The alleged conduct for which Richard was sanctioned included failure to serve notice to the defense of a pretrial hearing as required by court order, which the judge accused Richard of having done on three other occasions in the southern district, and also failing to respond to the defendant’s settlement offer.

Shortly after the defendant complained of Richard’s conduct to the court, the parties reached a voluntary settlement in the case. As a result of the complaint, the judge issued Richard an order to show cause why he should not be sanctioned.

At issue in Richard’s motion for consideration was what the court is allowed to do under its inherent power and under Rule 11, which requires that no monetary sanction or order may be imposed against a party or its counsel after the litigants have reached a voluntary settlement.

Judge Cote noted, however, that she received the defendant’s complaints about Richard’s misconduct and issued the order prior to the case’s formal dismissal or settlement. Instead, Richard had notified the court only that the parties had reached a settlement “in principle.” The case was not dismissed pursuant to the settlement until four weeks later.

The judge accused Richard of a pattern of omissions and misrepresentations in the case and failing to adhere to standards expected of officers of the court. Continue reading ›

The sports industry is one of inflated prices. From tickets to merchandise, rabid fans are often willing to pay outrageous prices for the illusion of a connection to their favorite player and this includes the selling of equipment that was allegedly worn by star players during games. The question of whether it can be proven that a specific piece of equipment was worn during a game or not was up for debate in a recent lawsuit against Eli Manning, the Giants, two equipment managers for the NFL team, and Steiner Sports, a company that sells helmets and jerseys worn by players during games.

The lawsuit was filed by Eric Inselberg, Michael Jakab, and Sean Godown, who purchased two helmets that were supposed to have been worn by Manning during games, but the three men allege that is not actually the case. Inselberg, who filed the lawsuit in 2014, claimed photographic experts used a technique known as “photo matching” to determine if the helmets he, Jakab and Godown had bought had actually been used in NFL football games. According to the lawsuit, these experts allegedly failed to find any evidence that either helmet had, in fact, been worn during any game.

Manning and the Giants argued that photo matching isn’t reliable because helmets are routinely reconditioned after, and even during seasons. They claim photo matching fails to take this into consideration and the evidence that a particular helmet was worn during games is to be found on the inside of the helmet, rather than the outside. Continue reading ›

 

It’s common for early versions of a new technology to suffer from some kinks that still need to be worked out, but usually, developers find remedies for those problems in later versions of the technology. Unfortunately, Apple allegedly failed to find a fix for their defective Apple Watch screen, according to a recent consumer class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit, which was filed in California, is seeking $5 million in damages – enough to take the case to the federal level if a judge agrees to certify the class and the parties agree that federal court is the best venue for arguing the case.

The lawsuit alleges Apple Watch screens are prone to shattering, cracking, and popping out through no fault of the wearer. According to the complaint, Apple knew about this problem when it started selling its smartwatches (and possibly even earlier), but failed to do anything about it. The problem allegedly started with the very first Apple Watches the tech giant ever sold and has continued through Series 3, which is the latest version to be sold by the company.

Although Apple forums are full of complaints about the Apple Watch screens, Apple refuses to publicly admit the devices have a problem. The only step the company has made toward remedying the situation is to offer extended warranty plans for certain versions of the Apple Watch for screens that had popped out as a result of a battery swelling issue. Apple announced in spring of 2017 that it would begin offering these extended warranty plans. Continue reading ›

Lubin Austermuehle’s predecessor firm litigated a case that is now before the Illinois Supreme Court on Respondent’s appeal of 750 ILCS § 5/513 (“Section 513”) being declared unconstitutional.

When an Illinois Statute is declared by a court to be unconstitutional it can be directly appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court and it does not have to go through to the Appellate Court first. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 302(a)(1).

The Respondent in the underlying case, where Section 513 was declared by the circuit court to be unconstitutional filed a direct appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court to decide if Section 513 is unconstitutional.

Lubin Austermuehle was retained by our client in the circuit court case to defend him in the appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court.

The circuit court’s ruling that Section 513 is unconstitutional was only applicable to the facts of the case. Our client’s fundamental right of raising his child and his decision to guide his daughter to a more appropriate college through the tightening of his pocket-book strings was obstructed by Section 513.

Section 513 creates two separate classes of persons, those married with children and those unmarried, widowed, or divorced with children. This is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection to all United States citizens regardless of their classification by the government. Continue reading ›

Although no one legally needs a reason to fire a consultant, it’s another matter entirely to allegedly defame that consultant to other potential clients. According to a recent defamation lawsuit, that’s allegedly what happened after Tim Semmerling was fired from the U.S. Department of Defense’s Office of Military Commissions.

Semmerling, who lives in Illinois, opened his own mitigation services practice in 2010, called The Mercury Endeavor LLC, which specializes in working with Arabs, Muslims, and the military.

Semmerling said he was contacted in June of 2011 by Cheryl Bormann, another Illinois resident who is a qualified lead counsel attorney for death penalty litigation. At the time, Bormann was working as a defense attorney for a member of al-Qaeda who was being held at Guantanamo Bay while facing charges pertaining to the terrorist attack that happened on September 11, 2001.

According to the complaint, Bormann allegedly offered to hire Semmerling as the client’s mitigation specialist and instructed him to not accept any offers from other defense teams.

Semmerling said he started working for the client in October of 2011 when he traveled to Washington to meet with Bormann and the rest of the capital defense team. In July 2012, he made another trip to Washington for an interview with agents of the CIA so he could get the security clearance required to serve his new client. According to the complaint, Bormann and Michael Schwartz, a U.S. Air Force officer who was acting as an attorney on assignment at the Military Commissions Defense Organization, allegedly told Semmerling to be open and honest with the CIA operatives, and so when they asked questions about his personal life, Semmerling allegedly did not hold back from talking about his long-term, romantic relationship with another man. Continue reading ›

While Stormy Daniels has been dominating headlines since news broke of her alleged affair with Donald Trump when his wife was recovering from having given birth to their son, another woman from Trump’s past is also refusing to let him forget about the misdeeds he allegedly committed with her. The main difference being that, while Daniels was a willing participant in her alleged affair with Trump, Summer Zevos alleges Trump’s advances on her were unwelcome, unsolicited, and were committed during what she had been led to believe would be a business meeting.

Zervos was initially a contestant on Trump’s show, The Apprentice. Although she didn’t make it to the end of the season, Zervos said she was invited to meet with Trump at the Beverly Hills Hotel so she could pitch some of her business ideas to him. That’s when he allegedly sexually assaulted her.

Like many other women, Zervos went public with her experiences during the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump followed in the footsteps of countless other men accused of sexual misconduct, not only by accusing Zervos of lying but by trying to degrade her character in general. In the age-old he said/she said debate, discrediting the woman is a classic tactic and Trump is hardly the first to use it. He’s also far from the first person to get away with it.

But Zervos is firing back. She sued Trump for defamation of character in Manhattan. Continue reading ›

A recent ruling in the Illinois Appellate Court decided a very tough decision about two very qualified parents and whether the one parent could move out of Illinois with their minor child, so she could pursue her dream job.

Two individuals were married and had one minor child, they decided to separate and had been granted joint custody and decision making for their child. While married the couple lived in the City of Chicago and then later moved to Downers Grove in their marital home. During the divorce proceedings the marital home was sold, and the father moved to a rental home a few doors down from the marital home and the mother moved to an apartment nearby. The minor child’s mother had the life long dream of getting her Ph.D. from a school in North Carolina. The mother petitioned the circuit court to relocate to North Carolina because she was successful in being admitted to the Ph.D. program that she wanted to attend and would work in her dream job while studying for her degree. Experts for both parents determined that both parents had a successful and nurturing relationship with their minor child and that she would succeed with either parent in Illinois or North Carolina. The father objected to his minor child moving away to North Carolina as, among other things, he would not see her as often and would not have as many in-person interactions with his daughter. Continue reading ›

An Illinois trial court ruled in favor of our client. The trial court held that the Illinois College Support Requirement for unmarried parents is unconstitutional as violating the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.

Our client, a very caring father wanted to pay 100% of the college expenses for his daughter to attend the best marine biology programs in the country to which she had been accepted. Her dream was to become a marine biologist. However, with the financial assistance of her mother, the daughter opted to attend a junior college and “party school” in Florida that had even made a list for the top party schools in the State. The Junior College also did not offer a degree in marine biology. Our client declined to pay for junior college tuition because he was shut out of the decision of where his daughter went to school. The Court originally ordered him to contribute to college as required by Illinois for all unmarried parents. We then sought a declaration that the statute was unconstitutional for treating unmarried parents differently and assuming they were not normal parents and would not look out for their children’s best interests as much as married parents.  The Court found the statute unconstitutional and held that divorced or unmarried parents should not be treated differently than married parents.

The Court noted:

While traditional two-parent, married families were the norm in 1978, in 2018 they make up less than half. In fact, if considered in statistical terms, children from either non-married or divorced parents would be considered “normal” based on today’s demographics.

It held in finding the Illinois statute unconstitutional:

The rational basis standard utilized in Kujawinski presumes that never married or divorced couples are less normal and less likely to provide post-secondary education for their offspring than couples who are married, or single parents. While this may have been true in 1978, there is no basis for such a conclusion today.

You can view the Court’s full opinion here. Continue reading ›