|

Miley Cyrus has become the latest pop star to be hit with a multi-million-dollar lawsuit for one of her songs, which reached second place on the Billboard Hot 100 in 2013. The song is “We Can’t Stop,” which Michael May, a Jamaican songwriter, alleges bears a striking similarity to his own song, “We Run Things,” a 1988 reggae track that reached No. 1 in Jamaica.

The line in question appears in “We Can’t Stop” as “We run things/things don’t run we,” which May alleges is suspiciously similar to the line “We run things/things no run we,” which appeared in “We Run Things.”

In addition to Cyrus herself, her manager, Larry Rudolph, has also been named as a defendant in the lawsuit, as have writers and producers of the song, including Timothy Thomas, Theron Thomas, and Mike Williams. RCA Records and Sony Music are also defendants in the copyright infringement lawsuit.

To support May’s allegations, the complaint points to a 2015 article in which Theron Thomas talks about how Caribbean music has influenced his own work. It further alleges that Cyrus’s song would not have seen the same success without the stolen elements of Jamaican music, specifically the language of Jamaican Patois. Continue reading ›

|

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is arguably the most important part of the document because it guarantees all citizens the right to free speech. It means we have the right to openly debate (and criticize) each other, our neighbors, public figures, and most importantly, our own government. That right extends to specific individuals who work for, or are hoping to obtain positions in, the government. Having envisioned a government made by the people for the people, our founding fathers realized that freedom of speech would be a key ingredient to this experiment, which is why they lost no time in adding it to the Constitution.

So Josh Harms was probably taken by surprise when officials of the city in which he lives threatened to sue him for exercising his First Amendment right.

Harms, who lives in Sibley, Iowa, has been protesting his city’s government on his website, which is called “Should You Move to Sibley, Iowa?” Harms set up the website, and posts on it, in order to protest the city’s decision to allow Iowa Drying and Processing to move into a vacant building in Sibley in 2013. Harms started posting on his website a couple years later in 2015.

Iowa Drying and Processing uses pig blood to make a protein-rich supplement for animal food, so it’s not hard to imagine that Harms’ odor concerns are legitimate. He was most likely not far from the mark when he wrote on his website that the town smelled like “rancid dog food.” Continue reading ›

|

Buying a landmark often comes with unique challenges people don’t have to worry about when purchasing just any old building. In addition to the location and the features of the building itself, buyers of a landmark also have to think about how they can preserve the value of that building as a landmark, especially once the former occupants have left the building.

The Tribune Tower stands on what is known as the Magnificent Mile and has been a landmark of the city since it was first built in 1925. It has housed the offices and newsroom of the Chicago Tribune ever since and currently bears a sign of the Tribune’s logo along the top of a low-rise section of the building overlooking the plaza. Commuters have seen that iconic logo every day for decades as they drive or ride the train past the building, but apparently they won’t be able to for much longer.

The newspaper’s lease is set to expire at the end of June, but the company says it is planning to move out before then and relocate to the office complex of Prudential Plaza. Instead of overlooking the Chicago River, their offices will look out over Millennium Park. Continue reading ›

|

Having remained a beloved classic for more than fifty years, the status of Harper Lee’s famous novel, To Kill a Mockingbird was seriously upset when an earlier version of the novel, Go Set A Watchman was published a few years ago. Specifically, readers were floored by the depiction of Atticus Finch as a racist segregationist, rather than the morally upright character depicted in Lee’s first novel.

With our perception of Atticus thus changed, it only makes sense for a playwright to draw on that dichotomy when writing an adaptation of either of Lee’s novels. But Lee’s estate does not appear to agree.

A new Broadway production of “To Kill A Mockingbird” is in development, with Jeff Daniels set to play the seminal character of Atticus, and Oscar winner, Aaron Sorkin, writing the script.

It should come as a surprise to no one that Sorkin wants to update this historic character. An adaptation is rarely, if ever, a word-for-word translation, since things that work on the page don’t necessarily work on the stage or on the screen. By the same token, things that had an impact in 1960 aren’t necessarily going to be as effective in 2018. In fact, Sorkin said he deliberately wanted to avoid setting the play in the same political climate as the book, since he doesn’t think that would be as interesting to a modern audience.

But when Tonja B. Carter, the attorney in charge of running Lee’s estate, heard about Sorkin’s ideas for Atticus, she reportedly met with Scott Rudin, one of the show’s producers, to express her concerns regarding the change. The two were reportedly unable to resolve their different interpretations of the matter, and Lee’s estate sued the producers of the show shortly thereafter. 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 ›

|

The Panamanian government is in dispute with an owners’ association and Trump Hotels.  This was after an attempt to dislodge the Trump name from the Trump International Hotel and Tower Panama occurred.

The matter first came to light when the property owners’ association voted to remove Trump’s management team.  This was in January when  it was alleged that there had been “gross mismanagement, breaches of contract, conversion, and breaches of fiduciary duties.”  As a result, the Public Ministry of Panama is looking into the allegations seriously and as to whether or not any action is warranted.  Accordingly, investigations continue.

Part of the investigation has yielded that the hotels as having a valid contract to manage the property and a Miami based Company do not wish for this to continue.  The Federal Prosecutors have examined accusations over documents being shredded, electrical equipment disputes and of the office being barricaded.  Property owners also publicly have complained of being barred from access during the period of dispute.  When claiming access to property attempts were being made, a statement concerning “hostile attempts” to take over the hotel was released.  They retaliated with their statement condemning the bully tactics employed, indicating that the matter should be settled in arbitration.  Trump Hotels, on the other hand, feel that they will succeed in court proceedings.  Continue reading ›

|

Sometimes a stray email is all it takes to send things into a spiral.

In the case of Karen D’Onofrio and her former employer, Vacations to Go, such a stray email led D’Onofrio to sue her employer for allegedly violating her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The cruise company responded by countersuing her for allegedly violating the non-compete clause of her employment contract.

The issues involved in the case go back to 2011, when D’Onofrio’s husband, Michael, was injured in a car accident. Three years later, he bought a franchise from a company that sells travel-related products and services, including cruises. As part of his application to buy the franchise, Michael included a screenshot of his wife’s sales records, although the picture in question did not include any client names.

A few months after Michael bought the franchise, D’Onofrio asked for leave from work under the FMLA so she could take care of her husband. She was given the option of taking unpaid leaving or working from home a few days out of each week and she decided to go with the latter. Then she allegedly attended a training session for her husband’s franchise while she was on leave and did not respond to messages from clients of Vacations to Go. When a manager sent an email incorrectly stating that D’Onofrio no longer worked for the cruise company, D’Onofrio assumed she had been fired. She was wrong, but she still sued Vacations to Go for violating her rights under the FMLA. Continue reading ›

|

As important as their reputation is to their career, public figures (by the nature of their jobs, which puts them in the spotlight) have a hard time controlling that reputation. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects most forms of freedom of speech, especially those regarding public figures. The idea is that free and unprohibited discussion of public figures makes for a more informed public, which can only be good for the public.

This includes creative renderings of historical events and people. Writers and artists often choose to write about things that actually happened decades, or even centuries ago, either because those events are interesting in and of themselves, and/or to make some sort of commentary on modern society.

Ryan Murphy chose to make a limited series about the making of the movie, “What Ever Happened to Baby Jane,” which starred Joan Crawford and Bette Davis. The series, “Feud: Bette and Joan,” was Murphy’s way of discussing sexism and ageism in Hollywood, two factors that continue to affect the movie and TV industry (among others) to this day, more than fifty years later.

The problem, according to a recent lawsuit, was the fact that, in addition to Joan Crawford and Bette Davis, the show necessarily had to write about other people who surrounded and interacted with those two stars at the time the film was made, including Olivia de Hallivand, now 101 years old. De Hallivand objected to the way she was portrayed in the limited series and says they never obtained her permission to use her name or likeness for the show. Continue reading ›

|

A federal judge recently dismissed a consumer class action lawsuit that had been filed against McDonald’s in Chicago over the fast food franchise’s so-called “Extra Value Meal.”

Customers who want a variety of offerings from the McDonald’s menu have the option of either ordering them individually or ordering them together in a pre-packaged and pre-priced “Extra Value Meal.” The labeling of these combo meals implies that buying them together would provide a better value for the customer, but according to the recent class action lawsuit, that is a deceptive implication.

Kelly Killeen, the named plaintiff who filed the lawsuit, alleges she recently bought a sausage burrito breakfast Extra Value Meal at a McDonald’s location in Chicago for $5.08. The meal consisted of two sausage burritos, hash browns, and coffee, all of which Killeen alleges would have cost her $4.97 if she had ordered them individually, rather than as an “Extra Value Meal.”

Judge Elaine Bucklo dismissed the lawsuit, saying that because all the prices for each item, as well as each “value meal” were clearly labeled and available to the public, the fast-food chain could not be held liable if consumers did not take the time to compare prices themselves. Continue reading ›

|

When a staffing company hires professional recruiters, they probably don’t anticipate that they’ll recruit the company’s own employees to a competing staffing company, but that’s allegedly what a former director for Randstad did.

Randstad, a leader in the world of industry staffing and recruiting, recently filed a lawsuit against four former employees who allegedly left their positions at Randstad, without notice, to allegedly set up a competing staffing company just down the street from Randstad. The lawsuit alleges that the former director took his entire team, including two executive recruiters and the company’s office administrator, with him to work at the new staffing company he had just set up.

According to the complaint, Randstad’s former director knew that the two executive recruiters he was taking with him had signed confidentiality and non-compete agreements that prevented them from working for a competing company in the same geographic area for at least one year after their employment with Randstad had been terminated. The agreements also allegedly prohibited them from taking either clients or employees away from Randstad.

The complaint does not yet allege that the former employees stole customers away from Randstad, but it alleges that the fact that they started another staffing firm not far from Randstad’s offices should be sufficient to prove they posed a risk to Randstad’s business. Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address office.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW
Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, DiTommaso Lubin, PC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design