Bio
• Cases • Publications • Seminars
Exelon v. General Atomic Technologies Corporation and Exelon v. Nuclear Fuels Corp.
06C 5516 (N.D. Ill. 5/12/08) and 06C 5515 (N.D. Ill. 3/5/08)
Breach of contract and fraud lawsuits arising from contracts for the delivery of uranium, seeking more than $100 million. Settled favorably a month before trial. McConnell v. Iovino
04C 3705 (N.D. Ill. 8/21/06)
In this decision, the court granted our clients summary judgment in a federal RICO case based on an alleged scheme to defraud plaintiff out of profit sharing. The court previously granted our other clients judgment on the pleadings on the civil conspiracy claims. Solomon v. Spalitta
05C 6649 (N.D. Ill. 7/26/06)
In this opinion, the court granted our motion to dismiss or transfer the case based on improper venue. Kim v. Citigroup, Inc.
02 CH 15036 (Cir Ct Cook Co. 7/11/05)
In a class action, the court granted our clients, a class of former employees, summary judgment on claims under the Illinois Wage Act. Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. Goss International
00 Civ. 8763 (S.D.N.Y. 9/20/04)
Represented printing press manufacturer in copyright and trade secrets case. Successfully defeated motion for summary judgment on argument that prior bankruptcy proceeding barred claims. Goss Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Man Roland
139 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (N.D. Iowa 2001)
Represented plaintiff newspaper printing press manufacturer against foreign importers of presses in claims under the Antidumping Act of 1916. In this opinion, the court denied defendants' motions to dismiss on a variety of jurisdictional and substantive grounds. WTM, Inc. v. Hennek
125 F.Supp. 1040 (N.D. Ill. 2000)
Represented sellers of an $80 million computer server chassis business against claims by the purchaser for fraud in conjunction with the sale. In this opinion, the court granted our client's motion to dismiss claims under the Minnesota Securities Act. Thomas v. Chicago Park District
227 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 2000)
Represented Chicago Park District against claims that its regulations for issuing permits for events in the parks violate the First Amendment. In this opinion, the Court affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment to our client on all remaining counts. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Seventh Circuit decision on January 15, 2002, ruling in favor of our client on all issues.122 S.CT. 775 (2002). MacDonald v. Chicago Park District
132 F.3d 355 (7th Cir. 1997)
Represented Chicago Park District against claims that its regulations violate the First Amendment. The Magistrate held that various parts of the regulations were invalid and issued a preliminary injunction. In this opinion the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stayed that injunction and then reversed and vacated the issuance of a preliminary injunction. (See above for later history.) In re Economy Lodging Systems, Inc.
205 B.R. 862 (N.D. Ohio 1997)
Represented seller of a hotel in claims against purchaser and guarantors. In this opinion, the court refused to confirm the purchaser's confirmation plan in bankruptcy, based on our opposition. The bankruptcy filing was related to our obtaining a judgment on behalf of the seller, after defeating the purchaser's attempt to stay the action, Fofi Hotel Co., Inc. v. Davfra Corp., 846 F. Supp. 1345 (N.D. Ill. 1994). August Storck K.G. v. Nabisco, Inc.
59 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 1995)
Represented defendant in a trademark and trade dress infringement action brought by a competitor. In this opinion, the court reversed the preliminary injunction that had been issued against our client. Wobble Light, Inc. v. McLain/Smigiel Partnership
890 F. Supp. 721 (N.D. Ill. 1995)
Represented prospective investors in claims against them under RICO, the Lanham Act, and the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act. In this opinion, the court granted our motion to dismiss. Protectoseal Co. v. Barancik
23 F.3d 1184 (7th Cir. 1994)
Represented largest shareholder of a closely held business in vacating an injunction that had been entered against him twenty years earlier under the Clayton Act prohibition on interlocking directorates. In this opinion, the court affirmed the vacation of the injunction. | 
