Representative Experience Archive
Amundsen Davis represented a trust beneficiary in a declaratory judgment action to determine whether an email amendment to the trust was valid and enforceable. The amendment in question was in the form of an email the settlor had sent to the trustee and other family members shortly before his death.
Max Goodman successfully defended a physician against defamation claims and sexual misconduct. The claims were brought by a medical student.
Amundsen Davis represented trust in defending a breach of fiduciary duty and breach of confidentiality agreement litigation involving a closely held LLC.
Amundsen Davis successfully defended a homeowner against defamation claims brought by a candidate for condominium board president. The case settled for nominal figure.
Amundsen Davis represented a jewelry company, its parent corporation, and two of its individual shareholders accused of consumer fraud for selling jewelry with a lifetime guarantee that it did not intend to honor.
Amundsen Davis successfully defended an auto accident case on liability and damages in a three day jury trial where the verdict was 50% less than plaintiff’s pre-trial demand.
A commercial tenant accused a landlord of defamation for his statements to potential buyers of the tenant’s business. The court granted our Motion for Summary Judgment holding that following their depositions, the plaintiffs had failed to present evidence to support defamation per se.
Our firm successfully moved to strike the claims of non-Illinois residents from a federal class action alleging a performance group sent faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Debra Mastrian obtained a finding of non-discharge ability on a multi-million dollar judgment the client held against a former customer.
Amundsen Davis represented a cosmetics manufacturer that was accused of consumer fraud on the basis that it advertised its products as “gentle” even though they allegedly contained a harsh ingredient. We moved to dismiss the case on the basis that the claims were preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.