Firm News and Recent Decisions
January 29, 2018
Once again, SuperLawyers® Magazine has recognized nearly three-fourths of TDR partners for their high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. In addition, one associate has benn named a Rising Star
- Meredith Martin Addy
- Karina Zabicki DeHayes
- Gino L. DiVito
- Mark H. Horwitch
- Timothy A. Hudson
- Christopher D. Liguori
- Michael I Rothstein
- Caesar A. Tabet
- Uri Abt
- John M. Fitzgerald
- Brian C. Haussmann
The list of Illinois SuperLawyers includes no more than five percent of the lawyers in the state. Rising Star is a distinction reserved for the top 2.5% of Illinois lawyers who are under 40 or in practice for 10 years or fewer.
January 25, 2018
TDR Partners Brian C. Haussmann and Kate M. O’Brien traveled to Washington, D.C. to brief the U.S. Conference of Mayors on the firm's work in Chicago v. Sessions and on immigration-related legal challenges facing Chicago and other cities.
Haussmann spoke on the second day of the Conference’s Winter Meeting on a panel titled "Immigration: Responding to Current Challenges." The panel discussion was led by Mayors Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles, Jorge Elorza of Providence, and Tom Tait of Anaheim. Haussmann was also joined on the panel by Mayors Karen Freeman-Wilson of Gary and Steve Adler of Austin, as well as Avideh Moussavian, a Senior Policy Attorney with the National Immigration Law Center and Tony Choi, a DREAMer and activist for immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.
Haussmann’s presentation focused on TDR’s representation of the Conference in Chicago v. Sessions and recent steps taken by the Department of Justice and Attorney General to withhold federal law enforcement grant money to cities as a means of pressuring cities to change “Welcoming City” policies designed to maintain life-saving relationships with immigrant communities.
“The stakes for cities are very high,” Haussmann said. Noting that cities like Chicago have had Welcoming City policies in place for decades, Haussmann explained, “The evidence suggests that [Welcoming City] policies make . . . communities safer. They do not call for the harboring of criminal aliens. They call for the appropriate enforcement of local laws in a way that does not alienate communities that are absolutely essential for the enforcement of those laws.”
Haussmann also described and analyzed the course of the litigation in Chicago v. Sessions, offered his views on related litigation that is ongoing or likely in other cities, and answered the questions of mayors.
The discussion was aired on C-Span. Haussmann’s part of the discussion is available here, and the full presentation is available here.
January 4, 2018
On January 4, 2018, TDR partners Brian C. Haussmann, John M. Fitzgerald, and Katherine M. O’Brien filed an amicus brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in City of Chicago v. Sessions, Case No. 17-2991. TDR filed the brief on behalf of the County of Santa Clara, the United States Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the International City/County Management Association, the International Municipal Lawyers Association, and 23 additional cities, counties, and municipal agencies.
The brief supports the City of Chicago and urges the Seventh Circuit to affirm the lower court’s nationwide injunction against the Department of Justice. In the District Court, Judge Leinenweber enjoined DOJ from imposing unauthorized and unconstitutional conditions on the receipt of federal law enforcement formula grants under the Byrne JAG program. The Court found that DOJ lacked authorization from Congress to impose the enjoined conditions. The amicus brief argues that the lower court correctly granted a nationwide injunction against two challenged conditions, which aim to disqualify state and local governments from receiving critical law enforcement funds unless they agree to assist the federal government in enforcing federal civil immigration laws. The brief further emphasises that the unconstitutional and unlawful conditions undermine the ability of local law enforcement agencies to carry out their own considered judgments about how best to keep their communities safe.
This amicus brief was the first of 12 amicus briefs that argued in support of maintaining the nationwide injunction, and was joined by supporting submissions from, among others, certain members of Congress, 14 states and the District of Columbia, current and former law enforcment leaders, the National Immigrant Justice Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Anti-Defamation League.
The Seventh Circuit will hold argument in City of Chicago v. Sessions on January 19, 2018.
A copy of the brief is available here.
November 1, 2017
Chicago-based litigation boutique Tabet DiVito & Rothstein LLC has been named a top-tier firm in the 2018 edition of U.S. News & World Report - Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms,” the premier guide to law firms in the United States.
Tabet DiVito & Rothstein (TDR) again received a Tier 2 designation in the categories of Litigation-Patent and Patent Law for the Chicago metropolitan area; it was ranked in Tier 3 in the category of Litigation-Patent nationally.
To be eligible for a “Best Law Firms” designation, a firm must have at least one lawyer listed in the current edition of The Best Lawyers in America, an annual publication that identifies the top four percent of attorneys in the United States.
TDR partner and intellectual property litigator Meredith Martin “Mimi” Addy has been named to Best Lawyers every year since 2007. She is recognized in the 2018 edition for her work in patent law and patent litigation.
Addy joined TDR in May 2016, and leads the firm’s growing intellectual property litigation practice group of 12 attorneys in representing clients with cutting-edge technologies in IP matters not typically handled by general practice firms. The team has built a national reputation due to its success in patent litigation and appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, in the trial courts, and on certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. News - Best Lawyers "Best Law Firms" rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes feedback from clients and peer attorneys addressing expertise, responsiveness, cost-effectiveness, civility, integrity, and whether they would refer a client to the firm. Law firms provide additional information as part of the formal submission process.
More information about the 2018 “Best Law Firms” rankings is at http://bestlawfirms.usnews.com/.
Rothstein - President-Elect; Hudson - Director
October 5, 2017
On October 4, 2017, the Chicago Chapter of the Federal Bar Assocition installed two TDR Partners as members of its management team.
TDR partner and co-founder Michael Rothstein was installed as President Elect. He will assume the office of Chicago Chapter President in the fall of 2018. Mr. Rothstein previously held the positions of Vice President and Treasurer in the organization.
TDR Partner Tim Hudson was installed as an elected member of the Chapter's Board of Directors. Mr. Hudson will serve a three-year term.
The Honorable Ruben Castillo, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, swore in Mr. Rothstein, Mr. Hudson, and their fellow officers and board members at a luncheon at the Union League Club of Chicago attended by almost 400 federal judges and lawyers. Political analyst David Axelrod gave the keynote address.
September 1, 2017
Yesterday Tabet DiVito & Rothstein attorneys Caesar A. Tabet, Brian C. Haussmann and John M. Fitzgerald filed an amicus brief as local counsel on behalf of Santa Clara County, California (the “County”) and 42 other local governments and organizations nationwide in City of Chicago v. Sessions, Northern District of Illinois Case No. 15-cv-5720 (Leinenweber, J.). The County’s brief supports the City of Chicago’s motion to preliminarily enjoin the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) from unconstitutionally controlling local law enforcement policy by requiring Chicago and other municipalities to enforce immigration law as a condition of receiving federal law enforcement formula grants to which they otherwise would be entitled. DOJ aims to disqualify state and local governments from receiving these critical funds unless they agree to assist the federal government in enforcing immigration law. The County’s brief argues that these unconstitutional and unlawful conditions undermine the ability of local law enforcement agencies to carry out their own considered judgments about how best to keep their communities safe.
A copy of the brief is available here, and more information is available directly from the County here.
Update: September 18, 2017
During hearings on September 15, 2017, Judge Leinenweber refered favorably to the amicus filings in discussing whether the City would be irreparably harmed absent an injunction. Judge Leinenweber granted a nationwide injunction against two of the three challenged conditions, ruling that DOJ lacked authority to impose them and that the City would be irreparably harmed absent an injunction.
Credit Repair Organizations Act and Electronic Funds Transfer Act Claims Denied
August 11, 2017
On August 11, 2017, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted our client’s motion to dismiss a putative class action brought on behalf of potential class members under the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA). Reid, et al. v. Commonwealth Equity Group, LLC d/b/a Key Credit Repair, 17-cv-3042 (ILCD, August 11, 2017).
Plaintiff entered into an agreement with a company for the purpose of improving his credit profile. Plaintiff alleged that the credit repair organization charged fees for services before they were fully performed, misleadingly guaranteed that plaintiff’s credit score would improve if plaintiff followed the company’s advice, and required plaintiff to waive his rights under the EFTA to cancel preauthorized electronic fund transfers.
In a 21-page opinion, the Federal District Court found that plaintiff failed to state claims under the CROA and the EFTA. The Federal District Court held that plaintiff failed to allege that he was charged for any services that had not been performed, and that plaintiff had not alleged a plausible claim that the statement that the company guaranteed to improve his credit score if he followed the company’s advice was misleading or untrue. The Federal District Court also held that the parties’ Service Agreement contradicted plaintiff’s alleged EFTA claim because the written agreement addressed only cancellation of the Service Agreement, but said nothing about plaintiff’s right to stop electronic payments.
TDR lawyers Tim Hudson and Jordan Wilkow secured this important opinion.
June 2, 2017
After a three week jury trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, TDR partners Christopher Liguori and Timothy Hudson and TDR associate Katherine O’Brien won a defense verdict for clients Hospira Worldwide, Inc. and Hospira, Inc. in a breach of contract dispute brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, S.A.
The lawsuit began in 2013 when GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, S.A. sued Hospira in the Southern District of New York, alleging that Hospira breached a contract to manufacture flu vaccine syringes. TDR successfully moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois, and Hospira subsequently filed a counterclaim against GSK.
After over two weeks of testimony from numerous witnesses, including four expert witnesses, GSK asked the jury to award it $23.9 million in damages.
The jury deliberated for two days and returned a verdict that found that GSK – not Hospira – breached the parties’ agreement. The jury found in favor of Hospira on GSK’s breach of contract claim, in favor of Hospira on its claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit, and in favor of Hospira on the key issue in the case – the scope of the contract. In addition, the jury awarded Hospira the full amount of the $1.35 million of damages it sought.
The case is captioned GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, S.A. v. Hospira Worldwide, Inc. and Hospira, Inc., No. 13-cv-04336 (N.D. Ill.). TDR partner John Fitzgerald and TDR associate Amanda Catalano also represented Hospira in this action.
FSLA, TILA and IRS Code Claims Against Motor Carrier Denied
April 28, 2017
On April 21, 2017, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted our clients’ motion to dismiss a putative class action brought on behalf of hundreds of potential class members under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the IRS Code, the Truth in Leasing Act and various Illinois and Indiana statutes. Derolf et al. v. Risinger Bros. Transfer, Inc., et al., 16-cv-1298 (ILCD, April 21, 2017).
Plaintiffs were former owner-operators who provided driving services for a motor carrier headquartered in Morton, Illinois, pursuant to Independent Contractor Operating Agreements. Plaintiffs alleged that they were improperly classified as independent contractors and that they should have been considered “employees” under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Internal Revenue Code. Plaintiffs also alleged that the lease provisions of their Operating Agreements violated federal Truth in Leasing Act regulations.
The Federal District Court found that plaintiffs were independent contractors as a matter of law under the terms of the Operating Agreements. Accordingly, the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ FLSA claims. The Court also dismissed plaintiffs’ claims under the Internal Revenue Code, holding that a private right of action existed only when the Form 1099 fraudulently represented the amount paid to the taxpayer. Finally, the Court considered the vehicle lease and found no actionable claim under the TILA regulations. The Court noted that none of the alleged violations caused any actual damage to plaintiffs.
Given the widespread use of the owner-operator business model, misclassification claims are rising in the trucking industry, this case will have significant ramifications for similar businesses around the country.
TDR lawyers Caesar Tabet, Daniel Stanner, Amanda Catalano, and Kelly O’Neill secured this important opinion.
March 8, 2017
TDR partners Meredith Martin Addy and Daniel Konieczny and TDR associate Ashley Crettol Insalaco, members of TDR’s patent litigation and Federal Circuit practice, won an impressive victory before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court reversed an adverse lower court decision in Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States and Elbit Systems of America, 2015-5150 (Fed. Cir. 2017). TDR represented Thales Visionix, the patent holder. Thales Visionix’s patent relates to relative navigation tracking used on the pilot helmets designed for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The Court of Federal Claims had dismissed Thales Visionix's patent infringement litigation, ruling on the pleadings that Thales Visionix’s patent did not cover patent eligible subject matter as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit reversed, applying a two-step test set out by the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. Int’l. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2437 (2014). Thales Visionix’s case is noteworthy because it is one of only 7 cases, out of close to 100, upholding patent eligibility since the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice in 2014.