Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog
Forum Selection Provision – Mandatory or Permissive? Knowing the Difference Could Make the Difference in Commercial Litigation — Chicago Commercial Litigation Lawyers Near Naperville
Knowing where to bring a lawsuit and what state’s laws to apply can have a huge impact on the success of business litigation. Courts have developed extensive and complicated rules and procedures for determining where a lawsuit should be brought and which jurisdiction’s laws to apply, but that procedure is rarely simple or straightforward. Conflicts between the laws of two or more states can complicate the matter further. Agreeing in advance to jurisdiction and venue can provide certainty and save a great deal of time and money in the unfortunate event litigation does ensue. For this reason, companies often address in the contract itself how any disputes or litigation will be handled. A common example includes “forum selection” or “choice of venue” provisions, which identify a specific state (or even a specific county within a state) as the proper jurisdiction and venue for litigation.
Forum selection is a particularly important part of a contract when the parties are from different jurisdictions, especially when the laws of those jurisdictions differ significantly from one another. A forum selection provision gives a business the security of knowing that any litigation will take place in a familiar location applying a familiar set of substantive laws. However, a poorly worded forum selection provision may not provide the security hoped for as a recent opinion from Delaware’s Chancery Court in a partnership dispute case demonstrates. The case, In re Bay Hills Emerging Partners I, L.P., et al, involved the issue of whether a forum selection provision in a limited partnership agreement required all lawsuits to be filed exclusively in Kentucky. Continue reading ›
DiTommaso Lubin Continues its Partnership as One of Viriant’s Preeminent Law Firms as Part of a Nationwide Network to Stop Cyber Smears and Anoymous Postings Attacking Businesses and Professionals — Chicago Reputation Defenders and Internet Defamation Lawyers
DiTommaso Lubin and Viriant’s Combined Efforts Help Remove Defamatory Internet Posts
DiTommaso Lubin is among a handful of leading lawyers from across the country picked as a member of Viriant’s nationwide network to protect companies, doctors, lawyers, accountants and other professionals from defamation on the cyber smears and internet defamation. We are excited to announce the continuation of our longtime partnership with Viriant.
DiTommaso Lubin has over thirty years of experience representing large and small businesses, and professionals such as lawyers in doctors in protecting their businesses from harmful online defamation and cyber smear attacks. We recently obtained a full retraction and apology for our large diamond wholesale client who was exposed to a sustained and targeted internet smear campaign. We filed libel per se suit against the perpetrator for $16 million and demanded the retraction and apology as a settlement term. You learn more about that suit here.
Rialmo and Former Drew Peterson Attorney Joel Brodsky Seeks to Overturn 7th Circuit Order Affirming $50,000 Sanction With Pro Se Brief Claiming Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Rialmo and Former Drew Peterson Attorney Joel Brodsky seeks to overturn 7th Circuit Order Affirming $50,000 sanction with pro se brief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
You can read the pro se petition for rehearing here where Brodsky claims his sanctions hearing and appellate attorney allegedly caused him to incur the sanction award that may lead to his claimed financial ruin.
Personal Jurisdiction and First Amendment Defenses in Cyber Smear and Internet Defamation Cases — Top Chicago Internet Defamation Lawyers Near Oak Brook and Naperville
We defend and prosecute cyber smear and internet defamation cases throughout the Chicago area including near Schaumburg, Aurora, and Wheaton.
We have defeated claims against our clients with a number of creative defenses founded on the First Amendment, Innocent Construction or personal jurisdiction defenses. We have also prevailed against such defenses for our libel plaintiff clients who have pursued defamations and slander claims. We have obtained removal from the internet of commercially defamatory reviews against our business and professional services clients such as doctors and lawyers posted on internet review sites such as Google and Yelp.
You can view here a decision in an internet defamation case involving a negative review on the Rip-Off Report where we successfully defended our client by obtaining a dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction. For a detailed discussion of the personal jurisdiction defense in internet defamation cases, you can go to our website.
You can view here a Yelp review by our client of our firm regarding the result we obtained in winning her case. This client was wrongfully sued for negative Yelp and other reviews against a daycare center that had been closed down by the Department of Children and Family Services for alleged negligent care of young children.
The Digital Media Law Website is a great resource for non-lawyers to learn about defamation law. It defines defamation as follows:
Defamation
Defamation is the general term for a legal claim involving injury to one’s reputation caused by a false statement of fact and includes both libel (defamation in written or fixed form) and slander (spoken defamation). The crux of a defamation claim is falsity. Truthful statements that harm another’s reputation will not create liability for defamation (although they may open you up to other forms of liability if the information you publish is of a personal or highly private nature).
Defamation in the United States is governed by state law. While the U.S. Constitution sets some limits on what states can do in the context of free speech, the specific elements of a defamation claim can — and often do — vary from state to state. Accordingly, you should consult your state’s law in the State Law: Defamation section of this guide for specific information.
There are many defenses to defamation and slander claims. Our lawyers concentrate in this area and can provide our clients — both plaintiffs and defendants — with considerable resources to guide their claims through the intricacies of these defenses. You can go to our two websites to learn more about theses defenses here and here.
Here is a video regarding a client we defended in an internet defamation claim. We settled federal court case in favor of our client after we filed a sanctions motion against the used car dealer plaintiff for filing an allegedly false lawsuit; our client received a full release and all of his videos and negative video reviews remained on the internet after we won an arbitration proceeding against the dealer which was part of the settlement of the federal court suit dismissing all of the claims. Here is a new story about the case.
You can read the Arbitrator’s decision upholding our client’s rights to keep his videos posted on the internet here. While the Arbitrator disagreed with our client’s tactics and did not endorse his conduct, he found our client had a First Amendment Right to speak his mind as long as he told the truth or simply voiced his opinions no matter how negative. The Arbitrator held as follows based on our cross-examination of the Claimant’s owner proving that our client had told the truth when he claimed that the Claimant auto dealership had engaged in consumer fraud in the past and that our client had only made minor errors in his hundreds of postings and video reviews on Youtube of the auto dealership:
There is no issue that Claimant has engaged in false advertising. [It’s owner] has admitted as much and more, including submitting a false affidavit in litigation antecedent to this arbitration. Judgments and pleadings are public records; disseminating this information that is part of a public record is not actionable. In addition, the fact of entry of judgment provides a colorable foundation for the opinions and conclusions published by Bates. As much as the Claimants would like to explain away these events, and as minor a part this conduct has played in comparison with the totality of business operations, the facts are what they are; once in the public domain these facts can be both circulated and commented on. In addition, insignificant errorata is not actionable in any event, and it is conceded that many postings are of this character.
Certified Pre-Owned Car Fraud — Best Chicago Oak Brook and Naperville Auto-Fraud Lawyers
We represent consumers who have brought Certified Pre-Owned Used Car Owners which is a rebuilt wreck. We have brought suit against many different manufacturers, such as Ford and GM, who have not stood behind the certification inspection which warrants that the used car was “like new” and thus had never been in a serious accident. In fact, the multi-point inspection missed that the used car had frame or other structural damage yet even though it passed the manufacturer refuses to stand behind the inspection claiming that the used car dealer, not the manufacturer is responsible for the inspection. Our position is that this is a fraudulent position and we pursue alleged claims against the manufacturer based on this legal position for all the consumers’ damages plus attorneys fees and punitive damages.
Tower Communications v. TSC Construction — District Court Rejects Personal Jurisdiction in Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Case — Chicago Business Dispute Lawyers
The district court rejected personal jurisdiction over a business and two of its employees where the alleged breach of contract and tortious interference occurred in a different state, and the employees and business lacked sufficient contacts with Illinois to justify jurisdiction.
Tower Communications and TSC Construction are competitors in the business of building and repairing wireless communication infrastructure. In 2017, both companies were working on an infrastructure construction project that spanned North and South Carolina. Tower sued TSC, alleging that during this project TSC poached Tower’s employees, Gary Juknevicius and Ruslan Tulegenov, and that TSC obtained confidential information from the poached employees and used that information to benefit its business.
The employment agreements that Juknevicius and Tulegenov had provided that they could not work for a competing company that worked on the same project as Tower for a period of six months after their employment ended. The agreement also prevented the employees from soliciting Tower’s employees, and from disclosing confidential information to a competitor. Included in the agreements was an arbitration clause. Continue reading ›
USAA v. PLS — Bank’s Negligence Suit Dismissed Against Check Cashing Company — Chicago Business Dispute Lawyers near Oak Brook and Naperville
A bank’s negligence suit against a check-cashing company was dismissed when the district court found that there was no private right of action under which the bank could sue to enforce regulations regarding the safeguarding of personal financial information.
USAA provides banking services to members and veterans of the United States military. PLS Group, Inc. provides payday loan and check cashing services at 300 retail locations in eleven states. PLS charges its customers a fee to cash checks or purchase money orders. PLS often cashes checks drawn on USAA bank accounts. When it cashes a check, PLS obtains information about the drawer of the check, including their name and signature, account and routing numbers, and encoded information used to verify the legitimacy of the checks.
In October 2012, PLS settled a suit brought by the Federal Trade Commission which alleged that PLS did not properly secure its’ customers’ information. Despite making changes to its processes, problems with unauthorized access to customers’ personal information continued. Nine individuals were later indicted by the government for engaging in a check-cashing scheme that used information from PLS employees to create fraudulent checks. Some of these counterfeit checks were drawn on USAA bank accounts. PLS employees involved in the scheme received a portion of the proceeds from the scheme. Continue reading ›
Orawin Technology v. Healthcare Delivered LLC Grants Summary Judgment in Breach of Contract Case — Chicago Breach of Contract Lawyers
A developer of healthcare software was denied damages for breach of contract. The court found that the developer had failed to take advantage of a substitute opportunity when its customer ceased paying on its consulting agreement and transferred its obligations to a successor company. Rather than contracting with the successor company, the owner of the software developer formed an entirely separate company to administer the new consulting arrangement. The court rejected this convenient manuever as a failure to mitigate damages, finding that the new arrangement would have completely offset the developer’s losses.
Orawin is a software technology consulting company, owned and operated by a single person. In 2002, the company developed software for SeniorDent, Inc., a dental management company that focuses on providing dental care to nursing home residents. In 2013, the two companies entered into a Consulting Services Agreement which required Orawin to maintain the software’s dental and vision operating systems and provide modifications determined by SeniorDent. SeniorDent agreed to pay Orawin a monthly retainer upon receipt of invoices.
SeniorDent later attempted to merge with Healthcare Delivered, LLC (“HCD”). HCD and Orawin entered into an amended consulting agreement, transferring all rights and obligations from SeniorDent to HCD. Two months later, the merger of SeniorDent and HCD fell apart, and HCD distributed SeniorDent to a holding company owned by the original owners of SeniorDent (“F&R”). HCD then transferred all of its rights to SeniorDent to the holding company. The owner of Orawin later sought payment for consulting services from HCD, and was told that the F&R was responsible for paying his invoice. The owner of Orawin later formed a new company, O&O, to provide services to the newly reorganized SeniorDent. SeniorDent paid O&O its standard fee beginning in December 2015 and has continued to pay every month since. Continue reading ›
Sunoco v. U.S. Venture, Inc. — Summary Judgment in Patent Infringement on Invalidity Issue
A manufacturer of systems that blend butane into gasoline prior to retail sale sued a competitor, accusing it of infringing on its patents. The competitor argued that the patents were invalid because the original inventors had sold their patented system to a third company more than a year before they filed for patents on the system, and because the plaintiff had allegedly engaged in inequitable conduct while prosecuting its patent claim. The Northern District of Illinois rejected the competitor’s arguments, finding that the sale of the system was made for experimental purposes and that the plaintiff’s conduct did not meet the high threshold required to invalidate the patents.
The plaintiff, Sunoco Partners, acquired its patents when it purchased the butane blending business of a company called Texon Terminals in 2010. The competitor, U.S. Venture, Inc. is in the business of mixing butane into gasoline prior to its distribution to retail outlets. In 2012, Venture retained Technics, Inc. to install a butane blending system at three of Venture’s fuel terminals located in Green Bay, Madison, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Sunoco later filed suit against U.S. Venture and Technics in federal court, accusing the companies of infringing on its patents when they installed the butane-blending systems at U.S. Venture’s fuel terminals. Continue reading ›