Firm News and Recent Decisions
August 29, 2018
On August 29, 2018, TDR attorneys won an impressive victory for our client the United States Conference of Mayors in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Conference represents the interests of cities throughout the country.
As a result of the Seventh Circuit’s decision, the Attorney General is enjoined from imposing three unlawful, immigration-related conditions on critical federal funds awarded to Conference member cities under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.
The litigation began in June 2018 when the Conference and the City of Evanston brought a lawsuit against the Attorney General in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois challenging the Attorney General’s imposition of the three conditions on Byrne JAG funds. As a result of the Attorney General’s conditions, cities faced a Hobson’s choice: agree to unconstitutional grant conditions or forfeit crucial federal grant funds.
On August 9, 2018, the district court granted the Conference and Evanston’s motion for preliminary injunction, and enjoined the Attorney General from imposing the conditions on Evanston and the Conference’s other member cities. However, the district court stayed the injunction as to the Conference’s members. In response, TDR filed an emergency motion in the Seventh Circuit on behalf of the Conference.
On August 29, 2018, the Seventh Circuit granted the Conference’s emergency motion to lift the district court’s stay and ordered that the district court’s original preliminary injunction go into effect.
The district court case is City of Evanston and United States Conference of Mayors v. Sessions, Case No. 18-cv-4853. The Seventh Circuit case is United States Conference of Mayors v. Sessions, Case No. 18-2734.
TDR partners Brian C. Haussmann, Katherine M. O’Brien, and John M. Fitzgerald, and associate Kyle A. Cooper represent the Conference.
April 25, 2018
Tabet DiVito & Rothstein partner Katherine M. O’Brien has been awarded the Amicus Service Award from the International Municipal Lawyers Association.
The IMLA Amicus Service Award recognizes lawyers who have been actively involved in legal advocacy for and on behalf of local governments and IMLA, and who have done exemplary work to protect and advance local government interests.
Ms. O’Brien is being recognized for her service to the IMLA Legal Advocacy program in the City of Chicago v. Sessions case. She will be honored during an awards ceremony on April 20 at the IMLA Mid-Year Seminar in Washington, D.C.
February 6, 2018
On Feb. 6, 2018, the Federal Circuit upheld for the second time the validity of the patent that TDR client Thales Visionix, Inc. asserts covers the helmet-mounted motion-tracking system worn by pilots of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, over the objections of Elbit Systems of America, which is one of the suppliers of the helmet systems.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the 2016 decision of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) rejecting the arguments made by Elbit during inter partes review that Thales’ patent claims were invalid based on prior art. The Federal Circuit held that substantial evidence supported the PTAB’s decision and that the PTAB properly interpreted the law when it rejected Elbit’s argument.
This is Thales’ third consecutive win, following the PTAB's 2016 decision and the Federal Circuit's March 8, 2017 opinion upholding the validity of Thales’ patent against Elbit’s argument that the patent did not claim patent-eligible subject matter as required by 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Thales' infringement claim, in which Elbit is named as a third-party defendant, is pending in the Court of Federal Claims.
TDR partners Meredith Martin Addy and Daniel Konieczny represented Thales Visionix, Inc. before the PTAB and in both Federal Circuit appeals. The latest opinion is available here.
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
Congratulations to:
SuperLawyers
- Meredith Martin Addy
- Karina Zabicki DeHayes
- Gino L. DiVito
- Mark H. Horwitch
- Timothy A. Hudson
- Christopher D. Liguori
- Michael I Rothstein
- Caesar A. Tabet
Rising Stars
- 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.
