Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Breach of Employment Contract (Non-Renewal Option) — “Breaching Party Cannot Take Advantage of Contract It Breached”

January 14, 2015 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Breach of Employment Contract (Non-Renewal Option): Assaf v. Trinity Med. Ctr., 696 F.3d 681, 685-86 (7th Cir. 2012)

As the Seventh Circuit articulated in Assaf v. Trinity Med. Ctr., 696 F.3d 681, (7th Cir. 2012), Illinois forbids a party in material breach of a contract from taking advantage of terms in that contract which benefit him. The Seventh Circuit stated: “the simple rationale behind the Illinois rule, a classic rule of contract law, is that a party should be prevented from benefitting from its own breach.” Assaf v. Trinity Med. Ctr., 696 F.3d 681, 686 (7th Cir. 2012).

In Assaf, the plaintiff-appellant, Dr. Bassam Assaf was terminated from his position as director of the epilepsy clinic at Trinity Medical Center in Rock Island, Illinois. Dr. Assaf then sued Trinity in Illinois state court. The case was removed from state court to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Continue reading ›

Uber Files Alleged Trade Secret Theft Case Against Former Executive

January 12, 2015 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Non-compete agreements are are commonly included in employment contracts, especially contracts for high-level executives. These agreements often require the employee to promise not to work for a competitor for a certain amount of time after leaving the company’s employment. They also usually require the employees to promise to protect the company’s trade secrets. Companies tend to be even more protective of their trade secrets when they are involved in a heated competition with another company.

One such company that has been kept on its toes is Lyft, a San Francisco-based ride-hailing company that allows customers to order a personal car using an app on their smartphone. Lyft has been in stiff competition with Uber, which provides similar products and services. The competition got tighter when Travis VanderZanden, Lyft’s former chief operation officer, left his position at the company, then went to work for Uber a mere two months later. Continue reading ›

20/20 Expose on Alleged Used Car Fraud at CarMax

January 12, 2015 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Consumers are complaining about alleged car fraud according to 20/20.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPfR0IicN-0#action=share

Claim for Failure to Pay Bonus Did Not Fall Within Illinois Wage Payment Act

January 10, 2015 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Freehauf v. TCB Design/Build, LLC, 2014 IL App (1st) 132928-U

“Claim for Failure to Pay Bonus Did Not Fall Within Illinois Wage Payment Act”

On September 5, 2014, the Illinois Appellate Court (1^stDistrict) affirmed the circuit court’s finding that the individual defendant, Mark Vandenberg, had not violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The Plaintiff, Gregory Freehauf, had been employed by TCB Design/Build, LLC, whose sole manager was Vandenberg. Freehauf’s complaint alleged that on April 11, 2006, he was offered a promotion to become president of TCB, which he accepted. The complaint further alleged that in a letter dated August 24, 2006, TCB guaranteed him a year-end bonus of no less than $200,000.00.

Freehauf left TCB in June 2008 and claimed that TCB owed him $232,297.50 in unpaid bonus earnings for 2006, 2007, and a pro-rata portion of 2008. In 2010, Freehauf filed a complaint against TCB and Vandenberg for breach of contract and violation of the Wage Act for allegedly failing to fully compensate him for his bonus earnings. Continue reading ›

“You’re Hired: Now Hand Over the Goods”

January 8, 2015 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Trade Secrets: Buckley v. Abuzir, 2014 IL App (1st) 130469

“You’re Hired: Now Hand Over the Goods”

In addition to potential tax advantages, the principal reason to create a corporation is limited personal liability, which means that the debts and liabilities of the corporation are distinct from those of its shareholders. However, in certain circumstances, courts are empowered to ‘pierce the corporate veil’ and impose personal liability on the officers and potentially even the shareholders of a corporation if there has been gross undercapitalization of the corporation, or if corporate funds have been improperly comingled with non-corporate funds, or if it finds that a ‘sham’ corporation has been designed to improperly shield the individual directors or shareholders from personal liability.

What if, in order to obtain proprietary information, an employer created a sham corporation, hired you as an employee, and then claimed your former business’s lifeblood — all its proprietary trade secrets? That is what is alleged in the April 2014 Illinois appellate case, Buckley v. Abuzir, 2014 IL App (1st) 130469. Continue reading ›

Preliminary Injunction to Prevent Alleged Customer Soliciation

January 5, 2015 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Crown Packaging Int’l, Inc. v. Brown, 2014 IL App (1st) 140284-U

“Preliminary Injunction to Prevent Alleged Customer Soliciation”

The Illinois Appellate Court held in July, 2014, that the trial court below did not abuse its discretion when it granted a preliminary injunction against defendants who allegedly operated a secret competing business in violation of a restrictive covenant.

Crown Packaging supplies craft breweries with containers such as glass bottles, bottle caps, and related items. In December 1998, Crown Packaging entered into an employment agreement with Brown, which contained a non-compete clause.

In September 2010, Brown started an alleged ‘secret’ side business, Libation Container, Inc. Crown Packaging alleged that Libation competed with Crown Packaging and solicited its customers, and that Brown failed to seek Crown Packaging’s permission to sell craft brewing containers on his own through Libation Container Inc. while employed by Crown Packaging. Brown denies the claims. Continue reading ›

Rite-Aid Sued in TCPA Unwanted Cell Phone Call Class Action — Our Chicago TCPA and Unwanted Cell Phone Call Lawyers File TCPA Class Actions

January 4, 2015 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

With the help of automated dialers, companies can now reach many customers all at once, via their telephones, to inform them of new products or services. These phone calls are often unwanted though, and even more so when the customers are the ones footing the bill. When everyone was using landlines, the person or company making the phone call was the one who paid for it, so although promotional calls were annoying, they never cost the customers anything. Now they can cost money and also invade privacy and waste time.

When cell phones became more common, customers were made to pay for the calls they received as well as the calls they made. This meant that some customers actually had to pay for the unwanted phone calls they got from various companies trying to sell their wares. In order to protect customers from this situation and to end the annoyance and invasion of privacy injuries if the practice could be deterred, legislators developed the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) which made it illegal for companies to contact customers via their cell phones in a non-emergency situation, unless the customers provided their express permission for the company to do so. Continue reading ›

Alderman’s Libel Case Thrown Out

January 3, 2015 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Anyone who runs for office would be well-advised to prepare themselves for some mud-slinging. Anyone who lives in the United States cannot help but be exposed to political candidates accusing each other of various indiscretions and dishonesties. These harmful statements are allowed to go unchecked because of the freedom of speech granted to all citizens of the United States under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Although intentionally defaming an individual can be punished under the law, there are limits to the instances in which this can happen. Most courts will protect language referring to a public figure, such as a celebrity or politician, because allowing free speech about public figures is considered to be in the public’s best interest. Promoting free discussion helps keep citizens informed about people and events that could potentially affect them. Continue reading ›

“Non-Compete Agreements: Are they Iron Clad in Illinois?” — Our Chicago Non-Compete Agreement Attorneys Handle Defending and Prosecuting Covenant Not To Compete Lawsuits

January 2, 2015 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Covenant Not To Compete Enforceable or Not — Factors to Consider?: Reliable Fire Equip. Co. v. Arredondo (2011 IL 111871).

“Non-Compete Agreements: Are they Iron Clad?”

In Illinois, the standard for enforcing non-compete agreements has changed in recent years. Prior to a landmark decision in 2011, Illinois courts generally enforced non-competes that were sufficiently limited in scope, duration and geography, as long as the employer seeking to enforce the agreement could show that enforcement was necessary to protect a legitimate business interest. Courts generally found that there were only two legitimate business interests in need of protection: confidential information, and near-permanent customer relationships. Continue reading ›

Wells Fargo Settles Class Case Claiming That it Violated the TCPA by Making Auto-dialer Collection Calls to Cell Phones Without Consent

January 1, 2015 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Those in debt know what a hassle it can be to deal with phone calls from debt collectors. They can be relentless, often because they have to be, but when they step outside the bounds of the law, then the debt collectors may be the ones that have to pay up. If debt collectors use automated dialing systems to call people on their cell phones, they may be in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The TCPA was enacted to protect consumers from the the invasion of privacy, annoyance and waste of time, or having to pay for calls they receive from companies using automated dialers. These calls are disruptive and can cost money. When cell phones became more popular many users were charged for the calls they received, as well as the ones they made. This meant that promotional calls that companies sent out to many customers using autodialing systems were not only annoying customers, they were costing them money if they don’t have unlimited plans. The TCPA made it illegal for companies to use autodialing systems to contact customers in non-emergency situations without the customers’ express consent. Since the law has been enacted, plaintiffs and defendants have argued over what constitutes consent and the definition of an auto-dialing system. Continue reading ›