Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

With the Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion having left many judges and class action attorneys frustrated with the current state of class action lawsuits, a new decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has reawakened hope for plaintiffs to achieve justice in a court of law. According to the new decision by the Court, a class action ban, as part of an arbitration agreement, is only enforceable if the plaintiff cannot provide compelling evidence that the ban on class actions would prevent them from obtaining a remedy under state law.

The Court recently ruled in two cases where the plaintiffs tried to prove that the class action bans in the relevant arbitration agreements were unenforceable. In Feeney v. Dell Inc., the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, having found that they provided sufficient evidence that the ban on class actions would prevent them from pursuing their claims. In another case, Machado v. Systems4 LLC, the Court upheld the class action ban present in the arbitration agreement, having found that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence that the ban prevented them from obtaining a remedy under state law.

In its decision in Feeney v. Dell Inc., the Court stated that the Supreme Court’s decision in Concepcion did not provide for a general public-policy-based prohibition on class-actions. Instead, the Court decided that the fact that arbitration procedures must not prevent plaintiffs from attaining justice in a court of law remains despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Concepcion.
The Court further denied that this interpretation applies only to federal statutory rights. Instead, it argued that the Federal Arbitration Act does not deny any remedies available under state law. As a result, a state court cannot prevent the Federal Arbitration Act from achieving its intended goals, simply by deciding that certain provisions of an arbitration agreement are unenforceable if those provisions prevent the assertion of claims provided by relevant state laws.

The court therefore decided that the enforceability of class action bans as part of arbitration agreements would be dependent upon “case-specific factual showings” that the ban would prevent plaintiffs from obtaining remedies which are granted to them by state law. In Feeney v. Dell Inc., a case involving small-dollar claims, the court determined that the class action ban would effectively prevent the plaintiffs from pursuing their claims, as individuals are unlikely to pursue lengthy and often costly litigation for insubstantial amounts. The case of Machado v. System4 LLC, on the other hand, consisted of significantly larger monetary claims, of the sort that individuals are likely to pursue in court, even without the added power of a class action. The court, therefore, determined that, in such a case, the class action ban present in the arbitration agreement remained valid.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is not alone in this interpretation of the law. The Missouri Supreme Court and the Second Circuit have also recognized that circumstances exist in which a class action ban cannot be upheld in a court of law. However, the Second Circuit’s decision in Amex that a class action ban which prevents the attainment of rights granted by federal law is unenforceable was just reversed by the Supreme Court. The decision that the Supreme Court has reached in Amex undercuts the reasoning using by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and allows class-action bans in arbitration agreements all over the nation to preclude class actions from proceeding, even if they are the only means of providing a means for protecting the rights at issue. The Supreme Court has provided businesses with a means of protecting themselves from expensive class action litigation.

Continue reading ›

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsN1s-OvdKs

Our client David Bates was sued by Chicago Motor Cars for criticizing the used car dealership online. We represented him in federal court and arbitration where he prevailed. He continues to exercise his First Amendment rights to criticize the dealership and is seeking to expose what he believes are unethical business practices and to support his position with evidence and judgments from court cases against the dealership. There are a number of court judgments finding that the dealer engaged in consumer fraud as to customers other then David Bates which we uncovered in our investigation.

In the federal court case the dealer filed a false affidavit claiming that it had never even been sued for fraud even though, in truth, these fraud judgments had entered against it relating to customers other than David Bates. The federal judge hearing the case entered a rule to show cause against the dealer requiring it to demonstrate why it should not be sanctioned for filing an allegedly false affidavit. The Court indicated that it might consider entering the sanction of dismissing the case along with sanctions against the dealer.

At that point, the dealer facing the impossible task of explaining why it had filed a false affidavit. Chicago Motor Cars decided to drop the case. It settled the federal court case by releasing all of its money damages claims against David Bates and his girl friend.

We then headed to arbitration where the Arbitrator, a retired judge, ruled that Bates’s videos,which were the subject of the arbitration, did not defame Chicago Motor Cars and were essentially true with any minor inaccuracies being irrelevant. Given Chicago Motor Cars’s documented history of fraud judgments entered against it and Chicago Motor Cars’s admissions in deposition and arbitration testimony regarding those judgments for fraud, the Arbitrator ruled against Chicago Motor Cars. He held that all of Bates’s many videos, which were the subject of the arbitration hearing, could remain posted on the internet. Mr. Bates’s First Amendment right to speak his mind and voice his opinions, even using harsh language, was vindicated. Consumers have a right to know that the business they are dealing with has a history of fraud judgments and to take that information into account in making a major purchase decision for a luxury, high priced car. Chicago Motor Cars’s owners admitted when we cross examined them that Bates had a First Amendment right to publish on the internet facts about the fraud judgments entered against Chicago Motor Cars.

Continue reading ›

Despite all of the patents and trademarks out there, one might assume that, at the very least, one’s own family history would be safe. However, according to Georgette Mosbacher, the owner of Borghese Inc., that is not the case.

The Borghese family is a noble Italian family, which has included royalty, rulers, philosophers, and a pope. In the 1950s, Borghese Inc. was started by Princess Marcella Borghese and Revlon and has since been developed into a well-known cosmetics brand. In 1976, Revlon bought the rights, title, and interest to the Borghese cosmetics brand. According to the court papers, this included “the words BORGHESE, MARCELLA BORGHESE”, and “PRINCESS MARCELLA BORGHESE”.

In 1992, Revlon sold Borghese Inc. to Ms. Mosbacher, who then became its chief executive. She then reached an agreement with the family regarding final payments, although those have also been disputed.

Since then, Princess Marcella’s descendants have made their own mark on the beauty industry. Her son, Francesco, started his own line of beauty products in the early 1980s under names such as Orlane, Perlier, and Elariia. Beginning in the 1990s, the family (including Francesco, his wife, Amanda, and their son, Lorenzo) started making appearances on the home shopping channel QVC and, after that, HSN.

While none of the products are sold under the Borghese name, their marketing does include the noble lineage of the Borghese family. However, Borghese Inc. argues that that heritage is no longer theirs to capitalize on.

According to Mark N. Mutterperl, the attorney representing Borghese Inc., the lawsuit “is not different than if any other brand name with a surname like Lauder, McDonald, Heinz, Gallo, Ferragamo were to take steps as they do to stop others from using their intellectual property rights”.

Mark Evens, the attorney for the Borghese family, argues that Borghese Inc. “has suffered no harm. No dilution of their mark. No counterfeiting. No palming off.”

For decades, the Borghese family coexisted peacefully with Borghese Inc. It wasn’t until 2006, when Lorenzo entered into discussions with ABC to possibly appear on “The Bachelor” that things started to get heated. It was then that ABC mentioned Lorenzo’s grandmother as the woman who “started the famed self-named cosmetics line, Borghese Inc.” Although there is nothing factually incorrect about this assertion, Ms. Mosbacher nevertheless appeared to feel that her toes were being stepped on. She wrote to Mr. Borghese to warn him not to “cause any false impression in the marketplace that there is a connection or relationship between yourself and Borghese Inc. and our cosmetics products.”

In 2008, Lorenzo applied for a federal trademark for a line of pet shampoos and conditioners called “La Dolce Vita by Prince Lorenzo Borghese” for PetSmart. Borghese Inc. contested the trademark and, as the trademark approached approval in 2010, Borghese Inc. filed a lawsuit against the family.

Continue reading ›

There are multiple reasons why so many people are up in arms against the rising prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our crops. Aside from the debate as to whether consuming food that has been genetically modified is safe, the issue of contamination is potentially a very serious problem.

Recently, Monsanto has been prominent in the news and in the courts, often depicted as an evil corporation putting the health of the public at risk for the sake of profit. Now the company is facing several lawsuits from farmers who claim that they have suffered financial harm as a result of Monsanto’s genetically modified wheat having been found in a wheat field in Oregon. In late May, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that a wheat farmer in Oregon had discovered Monsanto’s genetically modified wheat growing on his farm alongside his conventional wheat.

The announcement was followed by European and Asian buyers quickly backing out of buying American wheat when they heard of the contamination. Consumers in Europe and Asia have much stronger feelings against GMOs than American consumers. Both South Korea and Japan have suspended certain purchases of American wheat. The European Union has said it will increase the testing of produce coming in from the United States.

The announcement made by the Department of Agriculture and the ensuing loss of overseas buyers for American wheat has led to a series of lawsuits against Monsanto. Clarmar Farms, Inc., farmer Tom Stahl, and the Center for Food Safety have filed a lawsuit against Monsanto in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The lawsuit is seeking class-action status on behalf of other farmers it alleges have been harmed by the lower wheat prices, which have resulted from overseas buyers backing out of buying American wheat.

A similar lawsuit was filed a few days prior by a wheat farmer in Kansas who alleges that he and other farmers have been financially harmed by lower wheat prices as a result of the discovery of Monsanto’s genetically modified wheat in American crops. Two other farmers have also filed similar lawsuits in federal court for the western district of Washington state.

The experimental wheat was initially developed by Monsanto in order to withstand treatments of its Roundup weed killer. The product was never commercialized though, due to widespread industry opposition. International buyers were already threatening to stop buying American wheat if the GMOs ever entered the marketplace. The decision to end attempts at commercializing the wheat was announced in 2004.

The field testing of the genetically modified wheat that Monsanto did in many states was supposed to have kept the experimental wheat from contaminating conventional wheat supplies.
Following the most recent onslaught of lawsuits, Monsanto has said that, when it ended testing on the genetically modified wheat, it ordered the wheat to be destroyed or shipped to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s seed storage facility in Colorado. Company officials have denied knowing how their wheat could have made its way into a wheat farm in Oregon.

Kyle McCain, an attorney for Monsanto, has called the lawsuits premature. He claims that the wheat “is limited to one field in Oregon, and no such wheat has entered the stream of commerce”. However, the genetically modified wheat has been found in one farm of conventional wheat, it takes no stretch of the imagination to think that the modified wheat has made its way, undetected, onto other farms and into the marketplace. When this possibility is taken into consideration, especially given the claims of GMOs’ potentially harmful effects, it is no wonder buyers overseas are hesitant to buy American wheat.

Monsanto insists that it followed “a government directed, rigorous, well-documented and audited” program when conducting experiments on the genetically modified wheat.
The lawsuit filed in Spokane, Washington, alleges that Monsanto’s failure to contain genetically modified wheat qualifies as “wrongful conduct” which has potentially contaminated “the entire wheat farming and production chain” and puts many wheat farmers at continued risk of harm by cross-pollination with and contamination of their crops. The lawsuit has not named a number for specific monetary damages, but it is seeking compensatory, as well as punitive damages. It also asks that Monsanto be made to decontaminate equipment, storage, and transportation facilities.

Continue reading ›