Recent Decisions
Supreme Court Resolves Defamation Case in Favor of TDR Client
On May 25, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court resolved the defamation and punitive damages case of Leyshon v. Diehl Controls North America, Inc., et al. in favor of TDR’s client, the former President and CEO of a North American subsidiary of a German conglomerate and against Diehl Controls and one of its executives. 49 N.E.2d 1098, 2011 Ill. LEXIS 865 (Ill. 2011). This followed our 2010 victory in the Illinois Appellate Court which affirmed TDR’s resounding victory at trial on behalf of our client, Leyshon v. Diehl Controls North America, Inc., 407 Ill. App. 3d 1, 946 N.E.2d 864, 349 Ill. Dec. 368 (1st Dist. 2010).
TDR’s client, a highly respected electronics executive, sued Diehl Controls and the company’s Chairman for their breach of an executive employment agreement and for defamation. After an eight-day jury trial, the jury found in favor of TDR’s client on all counts and awarded him over $13 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The jury’s award is believed to be the largest in this type of case in U.S. history. The trial court denied the defendants’ post-trial motion but granted their request to reduce the punitive damages award to $6 million.
On appeal, the defendants challenged the jury’s finding of liability on the defamation claim and the amount of damages awarded. They argued that the “for cause” statement was protected under the “innocent-construction rule,” because it could reasonably be innocently interpreted. The defendants also argued that they were protected by the “invited-defamation” defense, because the plaintiff “invited” the defendants’ defamatory statements. The defendants conceded, however, that they did not raise the invited-defamation defense until their post-trial motion.
The appellate court upheld the lower court’s decision. The court found that the “for cause” statement fell within the definition of defamation per se, because it was a statement “imputing an inability to perform or want of professional integrity in performing employment duties,” and “imputing a lack of ability or … otherwise prejudic[ing the plaintiff] in his profession or business.” The court held that, given the context in which the statement was made, it could not reasonably be construed as having an innocent construction. The appellate court further held that the defendants’ failure to raise the defense of invited-defamation prior to the jury verdict denied TDR’s client the opportunity to respond to a defense that, if proven, would have been a complete defense to his defamation claim. Therefore, the court found that the defendants had forfeited the invited-defamation defense. The appellate court went on to uphold the $2 million in compensatory damages and $6 million in punitive damages awarded by the trial court.
TDR partners Caesar A. Tabet and Mark Horwitch represented TDR’s client throughout the entire case, including during the two-week jury trial.
Leyshon v. Diehl Controls North America, Inc., et al.
49 N.E.2d 1098, 2011 Ill. LEXIS 865 (Ill. 2011)
Verdict for Hospira in ERISA Class-Action Lawsuit
On April 23, 2010, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found in favor of our client Hospira, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories on all counts of an ERISA class-action lawsuit filed against both companies in 2004. In the lawsuit, representatives of an 8,000-employee class claimed that Hospira and Abbott intended to interfere with their retirement benefits through Abbott’s spin off of its Hospital Products Division, which established Hospira as an independent company, and the implementation of a two-year reciprocal no-hire policy. The suit, in which the plaintiff class sought over $300 million in lost employee benefits, was tried over a period of three weeks in 2009.
In a 97-page opinion, the Court found that neither Hospira nor Abbott violated ERISA in connection with the spin off or the no-hire policy. Of critical importance to the Court’s decision was the testimony of the defendants’ witnesses, including Hospira’s CEO and COO, which the Court found was "highly credible, internally consistent, and amply corroborated by the unquestionably authentic documentary evidence." In ruling in favor of the defendants, the Court also vindicated Abbott’s and Hospira’s strategic decisionmaking and human resource policies relating to the spin off. The Court explained that "Hospira has been a successful, profitable enterprise in the years since the spin, no doubt in large part because it retained the talent it had at the time it became independent of Abbott."
Hospira was represented in this matter by TDR partners Christopher Liguori and Daniel Konieczny, associate Brian Haussmann, and legal assistant Diane Tasic.
Nauman v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc.
Case No. 04-cv-07199 (N.D. Ill.)
Discrimination and Retaliation Claims Against Public Official Dismissed with Prejudice
We successfully represented a high-ranking public official against gender discrimination and First Amendment retaliation claims. The Court dismissed all claims against our client with prejudice.
Tamayo v. Illinois Department of Revenue, et al.
(N.D. Ill. July 2, 2009)
Arbitrator Rules in Favor of Hospira
On March 31, 2009, an arbitrator ruled in favor of Hospira, finding that its exclusive supplier of flush syringes had breached its supply contract with Hospira. The arbitrator ordered Hospira’s supplier to deliver to Hospira 74 million additional syringes. In addition, the arbitrator awarded Hospira over $500,000 in attorney fees. The arbitrator also ruled in Hospira’s favor on its supplier’s counterclaim that Hospira was in breach of the parties’ agreement. Hospira was represented in the arbitration by TDR attorneys Gino DiVito, Christopher Liguori and Brian Haussmann along with co-counsel.
Hospira, Inc. v. Excelsior Medical Corporation
JAMS, REF# 1340007267
Arbitrator Grants Hospira Two Preliminary Injunctions
On February 13, and on March 5, 2009, an arbitrator granted Hospira’s motions for a preliminary injunction requiring its exclusive supplier of flush syringes to continue syringe shipments until a resolution of the merits of the parties’ breach of contract claims. Hospira was represented in the arbitration by TDR attorneys Gino DiVito, Christopher Liguori and Brian Haussmann along with co-counsel.
Hospira, Inc. v. Excelsior Medical Corporation
JAMS, REF# 1340007267
TDR Secures TRO Against Exclusive Supplier in Breach of Contract Action
On January 28, 2009, TDR, on behalf of its client Hospira, Inc., obtained a TRO requiring Hospira’s exclusive supplier of flush syringes to supply Hospira with 3.5 million additional syringes while the parties arbitrated the underlying merits of their breach of contract claims. Hospira was represented by TDR attorneys Christopher Liguori and Brian Haussmann.
Hospira, Inc. v. Excelsior Medical Corporation
Docket No. 09 CH 3225, Circuit Court of Cook County.
Appellate Court Affirms Circuit Court's Order Granting Hospira TRO
On February 2, 2009, the Appellate Court for the First Appellate District, affirmed a Circuit Court’s order granting TDR client Hospira, Inc. a TRO, which required Hospira’s exclusive supplier of flush syringes to continue syringe shipments while the parties arbitrated their breach of contract claims. Hospira was represented by TDR attorneys Gino DiVito, Christopher Liguori and Brian Haussmann.
Hospira, Inc. v. Excelsior Medical Corporation
Docket No. 09-0266, Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District.
Ruling on Preemption of Cable Franchise Fee Reversed by Illinois Supreme Court
We successfully represented Comcast in the appeal of a case before the Illinois Supreme Court, involving whether federal law preempted the City of Chicago’s franchise fee on cable modem service. The Court granted our petiton for leave to appeal, we briefed the issues, and we presented the oral argument on behalf of our client and two other cable companies before the Court. The Court held that federal law does preempt the franchise fee, a favorable result for our client and the other cable companies.
City of Chicago v. Comcast Cable Holdings, L.L.C., et al.
Docket Nos. 105342, 105348, 105349 (Ill. Nov. 20, 2008)
Court Grants TDR Client Hospira's Motion to Stay Arbitration of Indemnification Claim
On October 30, 2008, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, granted Hospira, Inc.’s motion to stay an ADR proceeding initiated against it by its former corporate parent, Abbott Laboratories. Abbott sought to arbitrate certain indemnification issues arising from a pending class action lawsuit filed alleging violations of ERISA. The court agreed with Hospira that arbitration of the indemnification issues asserted by Abbott was premature and had to await a resolution in the underlying ERISA lawsuit. Hospira was represented by TDR attorneys Christopher Liguori, J. Jeffrey Patton and Brian Haussmann.
Hospira, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories
Docket No. 08 CH 40219, Circuit Court of Cook County
TDR Secures Favorable Results in Property Damage and Personal Injury Lawsuits
TDR client Hospira, Inc. retained us to represent it in connection with multiple lawsuits arising from an explosion of an industrial freeze dryer called a lyophilizer at its facility in North Chicago, Illinois. TDR represented Hospira in its lawsuit against the machine’s manufacturer to recover for the property and business interruption damages it sustained as a result of the explosion. In addition, TDR represented Hospira in the personal injury lawsuits filed by the individuals who were injured in the explosion and the resulting fire. In August 2008, Hospira settled its property damage claim against the manufacturer and in October 2008 Hospira settled the personal injury claims against the machine’s manufacturer, all on very favorable terms.
Hospira was represented in these lawsuits by TDR attorneys Christopher Liguori, Daniel Stanner, John Fitzgerald, Brian Haussmann and Jack Barber.
Nogoy v. Hospira, Inc., Docket No. 05 L 5915, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois;
Dill v. Hospira, Inc., Docket No. 05 L 5918, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois; and
Hospira, Inc. v. The BOC Group, Inc., Docket No. 05 L 681, Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois.
TDR Wins Preliminary Injunction Trial for Fortune 500 Client
We defeated an action for injunctive relief against McDonald’s Corporation and its subsidiary in a real-estate case. After a multi-day evidentiary hearing, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction in a published written opinion. The case settled on terms very favorable to our client shortly after the court’s decision. Firm partner Karina Zabicki DeHayes and associate Brian C. Haussmann tried the case at the evidentiary hearing.
Normanbhoy v. McDonald’s Corporation, et. al.
N.D. Ill. Hon. Jeffrey Cole (September 30, 2008)
Jury Awards Over $13 Million to Former Executives
Tabet DiVito & Rothstein won a resounding victory at trial on behalf of its client, the former President and CEO of a North American subsidiary of a German conglomerate. TDR’s client, a highly respected electronics executive, sued the subsidiary and the company’s Chairman for their breach of his executive employment agreement and for defamation. After an eight-day jury trial, the jury found in favor of TDR’s client on all counts and awarded him over $13,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. The verdict has had important ramifications for other executive compensation and defamation cases in Illinois and throughout the United States. Firm partners Caesar Tabet and Mark Horwitch tried the case.
No. 06-003745 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., June 13, 2008)
TRO Obtained for TDR Client in Employment/Restrictive Covenant Case
We won a temporary restraining order for a medical practice client to enjoin a former employee from establishing a competing practice and engaging in improper solicitations. Within three months, we secured a favorable settlement for our client in which the terms of the temporary restraining order were extended for a period of two years from the date of defendant’s termination of employment.
Foot & Ankle Clinics of America, LLC v. Alameda
Circuit Court of Cook County (2008)
Summary Judgment in Insurance Recovery Case
TDR won summary judgment on behalf of our client in an insurance recovery action. Our client, an investment advisor firm, sued its insurer to compel the satisfaction of its duty to defend in connection with an underlying lawsuit seeking damages of approximately $9.5 million.
First Specialty Insurance Corporation v. Federal Street Advisors, Inc., et al.
Circuit Court of Cook County (2008)
TDR Defeats Securities Fraud Case
We obtained summary judgment in favor of our clients, a software development firm and a securities brokerage firm, in a multi-million dollar securities fraud and common law fraud actio
LaSalle Technology Inc., et al. v. ABN AMRO Inc., et al.
Circuit Court of Cook County (2007)
TDR Victorious in Appellate Court in Novel Reverse-Veil-Piercing Case
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of our client, Don C. Trossman, completely disposing of all claims against him. The decision was made following a successful (and seldom granted) petition for rehearing regarding a novel issue of great significance to Illinois business. The appellate court’s opinion is of particular importance because it rejected the equitable theory known as self-piercing, or reverse-piercing, of the corporate veil, which had been argued by our opponents. Firm partners Gino L. DiVito, Karina Zabicki DeHayes, and Michael J. Grant represented the client during the appeal, and DeHayes argued the case before the appellate court.
Trossman v. Philpsborn, et al.
Illinois Appellate Court (2007)