The Litigation Roundtable features nationwide updates on current cases and results from the GSH Litigation Department.

August/September 2011

• A Milwaukee attorney received many positive remarks from our client for doing an outstanding job on a consumer fraud matter. The attorney had stepped into this matter on limited notice and did an exceptional job for the client.
• An Indiana attorney obtained a grant of summary judgment for a major retailer in a parking lot, premises liability trip and fall case on the issue of lack of notice of the condition in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The plaintiff admitted to not looking where she was walking when she turned to get a cart from a cart corral, and caught her foot under the front stabilization rail of the corral.

June/July 2011

• The May 2011 dismissal regarding the safety/premises lawsuit for a large energy company that our Indiana office obtained was recently reopened due to opposing counsel filing a motion to correct errors, which were successfully defeated. The case remains dismissed.
• Our Chicago office has resolved the class action case it was handling for a Fortune 1000 company. The case was resolved for a de minimis amount because we were able to prevent certification of a putative class involving thousands of people.
• Two GSH New Jersey attorneys obtained a significant victory on summary judgment on behalf of our client in a personal injury matter arising out of an automobile accident in Broome County, New York. Instead of defending the action on the merits of the accident, which were unfavorable to our client, we sought to establish even if the accident had happened as the plaintiff contended, the plaintiff’s injuries failed to meet the requirements of Insurance Law 5102 (“the serious injury requirement”), which was required in order to pursue a claim. The plaintiff argued that she fell within an exception to Insurance Law 5102 by arguing that she was “substantially impaired” for 90 out of 180 days following the accident. After hearing oral arguments on this issue, the Court, in its order and written opinion, granted in the entirety of our motion for summary judgment under New York’s serious injury threshold and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. The Court closely followed our argument in its moving and reply briefs, especially the portion demonstrating that we had effectively shifted the burden to the plaintiff to show the 90/180 day serious injury exception and that she failed to do so.

May 2011

• Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan played a key role in successfully settling two large toxic tort/product liability cases for a large petroleum company. For over four years, Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan has defended our client in federal and Wisconsin state court in two cases brought by 26 former or personal representatives of former employees of a defunct tire plant in Wisconsin. Plaintiffs claimed that workplace exposures to benzene in rubber solvents allegedly supplied by the petroleum company from the mid-1940s to mid-1990s caused their various cancers. Plaintiffs offered our client a seven figure settlement demand, but Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan helped whittle down that amount to just 20% of the original offer. Accounting for a fraction of the defense costs that would have incurred during the remainder of both cases, the settlement will provide overall defense cost savings to our client.
• An Indiana attorney obtained a dismissal for failure to prosecute for a large energy company in a workplace safety/premises lawsuit. Plaintiff’s counsel, who had allowed the case to languish for three years prior to our taking over the defense, allowed another eleven months to pass after we filed a motion to compel discovery responses, which was granted, and provided only unverified interrogatory answers. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to file any response to our motion to dismiss showing cause for the delay, and appeared at the hearing expecting a dressing-down and another chance. The court found no good cause was shown, and granted the motion to dismiss. Our client was very pleased with the way we managed the litigation costs and obtained a favorable outcome.

April 2011

• A Milwaukee attorney represented a major robotics company in product liability allegations. Pursuant to early negotiations, the plaintiff is dropping our client from an amended pleading.
• A GSH Milwaukee attorney took a defense verdict for a medical malpractice coverage provider in a medical malpractice case that was tried for the past two weeks in Milwaukee County. The jury deliberated for 1 hour and 15 minutes in a case dealing with an alleged negligent gastric bypass. The medical specials were 1.3 million and future medicals were in the 4-5 million dollar range.
• A member of the Litigation Department represented a major corporation in a products liability case in Florida and obtained a very favorable verdict for the client. The trial took three weeks to complete.

February/March 2011

• A GSH Indiana attorney defended a large petroleum company in a personal injury case where the Plaintiff’s vehicle hit the Defendant’s tractor and tanker trailer from behind while both vehicles were making a right turn. The Plaintiff had disk fusion surgery three months after the incident and claimed over $80,000 in medical expenses. This matter proceeded to a three-day jury trial where the jury returned a verdict of no fault on the Defendants.
• Two GSH Milwaukee attorneys represented a Wisconsin lender where our client foreclosed on a property where the borrower was in default. The borrower asserted numerous counterclaims against the lender. We were granted summary judgment before the trial court and the borrower appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court in its entirety.
• A Chicago attorney defended a Fortune 50 company with respect to a premises liability action where the plaintiff sought $250,000 in damages for a torn rotator cuff for which the plaintiff underwent surgery for.
• The Indiana office has two cases set to go to jury trial in May. One involving a major package delivery company, and the other is a premises/slip and fall case for a fast food retailer.
• The Chicago office continues in its joint defense of a class action matter for a Fortune 1000 company.

January 2011

• The California office was involved in a contractual dispute where the plaintiffs named our client (the Board and other high-ranking employees of a school district). GSH California attorneys filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which prevented the plaintiffs from proceeding in the case for nearly a year. When the motion was heard, the Court granted the anti-SLAPP in almost its entirety – stripping out several causes of action and removing our client from the tort causes of action. Our client was very impressed and is pleased that they will be able to recover their attorney fees for the anti-SLAPP.
• A Milwaukee attorney won a civil rights trial. The trial was in the Western District of the Federal Court in Madison and it was a unanimous verdict for the defense.
• The Iowa office settled a slip and fall case for a large home improvement store that was originally scheduled for trial.
• The Iowa office currently has 20 trials scheduled in May 2011 through November 2011.
• The Indianapolis office is currently prepping for trial that was originally scheduled in November 2010 for a large petroleum company.

October 2010

• The firm’s Chicago and Milwaukee offices have been engaged to provide e-discovery support and brief writing support in a federal matter with an eight figure exposure.
• The firm continues to act as lead counsel for an Ohio MDL in which our client has been situated as a peripheral defendant.
• A Milwaukee attorney won another defense victory for a national consumer good company. The jury returned the verdict in favor of our client in 20 minutes.
• The Iowa office is currently working on a slip and fall case for a large home improvement store that will be tried in January.
• A Chicago attorney is currently working on two wrongful death matters for a tire manufacturer and large entertainment center.
• The California office is heavily involved in a class action case which began as a state class action brought against our client, along with six other same type industries. We are currently in the process of returning to the District Court to request a stay. If not granted, we will file a motion for stay in the Ninth Circuit.

September 2010

• A Milwaukee attorney won a defense victory for a major corporation this month. After a 3-day trial, the jury awarded zero damages to the plaintiff. Our client was ecstatic with the outcome.
• Working together with a major corporation, a Milwaukee attorney obtained a favorable decision and order from the federal court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The court entered judgment in favor of the company and against a party for his claim for the total loss of a vessel. The vessel rolled when it was being operated by a teenager at high speeds. The determinative issue before the court was whether the policy qualified as an ocean marine policy as opposed to an inland marine policy, the latter which would have rendered the named operator endorsement invalid under a particular regulatory scheme. The court determined that the policy in fact was one of ocean marine, the named operator endorsement was valid and the defendant was not entitled to coverage for the loss of his vessel.
• The Indiana office is currently working on a case for a large petroleum company that will be tried in November.
• The Chicago office is currently involved in a case where we are defending a major chemical company and the case is planned to go to trial in December.

July 2010

• The New York office represented one of the largest automobile dealers in the country for wrongful termination. Another franchise dealer filed for arbitration as permitted under the special legislation enacted last year. Our client was not a party to the arbitration; however, the rival dealer also sued our client, claiming he had a right to an injunction pending the outcome of the litigation. We successfully defeated the motion for a temporary restraining order. The court ruled that the legislation gave a right to arbitration against the franchisor, but conferred no right to injunctive relief against other dealers who were awarded the franchise “points” of the terminated dealers.
• One of the two class action matters the California office is working on ended in summary judgment. That case is now on appeal to 9th Circuit.
• The California office also settled a case that involved a well known music writer and producer. The demand from plaintiff was 2.5 million and the case settled for $7,500.

June 2010

• A mock trial was held in the Milwaukee office in preparation for a product liability trial. The cost of the mock trial was approximately $100. The mock jury verdict was identical to the actual jury trial verdict.
• Two of our Milwaukee attorneys won a defense victory for a national consumer goods company. The jury concluded that the product in question was not unreasonably dangerous and that the insured’s negligence in installing, maintaining and operating the product was the primary factor for the damages.
• An attorney in our Milwaukee office won a jury trial for a national chain. The jury awarded the plaintiff $35,000. Our pretrial offer was $26,000. The plaintiff demanded $500,000 pretrial at mediation. The plaintiff asked for consortium and the jury awarded zero.
• A Milwaukee attorney won a medical malpractice trial. Our attorney dealt with whether the appropriate surgery was selected, whether the surgery was appropriately performed and whether there was informed consent. The jury deliberated for 31 minutes and returned a verdict in favor of our client.
• Our Chicago office is co-counsel, providing defense in a multi-state, federal class action lawsuit against a national consumer goods company with respect to one of the company’s major products. Defense of the lawsuit has involved significant motion practice, review of design documents and e-discovery.
• The California office continues defending two class action matters.