On October 2014, the firm successfully defeated an emergency application for injunctive relief brought by a contender for political office (a seat in the Illinois House of Representatives) against his opponent in the election. The plaintiff in that case filed his emergency request with the court less than a month before the election, and sought to prevent further airing of a campaign ad placed by a political action committee. The firm argued that such injunctive relief represented a prohibited prior restraint on constitutionally-protected rights, including the rights of free speech and association. Since the court's denial of the temporary restraining order, the firm has asked the trial court to dismiss the complaint, and award the firm's client his attorneys' fees, under the Illinois Citizen Participation Act. That motion remains pending.

For 2015, Luke DeGrand has again been selected as one of Illinois' "Super Lawyers" and awarded an "AV Preeminent" rating from Martindale-Hubbell, the highest peer review rating given by that organization.

In September 2014, the magistrate judge again agreed with the firm's arguments and found that the defendants waived their right to assert the attorney-client privilege as to documents for which protection was sought. Lee v. Chicago Youth Centers, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, No. 12-cv-9245, 2014 WL 5017855 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2014). The defendants have again filed objections to this ruling before the district court.

In August 2014, the firm won an appeal for a small business in long-standing litigation arising from the exercise of a right of first refusal to purchase a parcel of commercial real estate. Before the trial court, the firm tried the case to successful judgment, with the circuit court finding that the firm had established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the client had properly exercised its right to acquire the property. Following that decision, the firm's client was sued in a separate proceeding by a bank that held a mortgage on the property. The bank sought foreclosure pursuant to its rights under the mortgage executed by the client's landlord, and two cases were consolidated. Suburban Auto Rebuilders, Inc. v. Associated Tile Dealers Warehouse, Inc., No. 09 CH 22225 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois); FirstMerit Bank, N.A., as Successor-in-Interest to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Midwest bank and Trust Company v. Associated Tile Dealers Warehouse, Inc., No. 11 CH 37264 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois).

The firm then succeeded in obtaining summary judgment in favor of the client and against the mortgagee bank. The trial court determined that the client's rights in the property were superior to those of the bank holding a mortgage on the subject property. With its August 2014 ruling, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling in its entirety, marking the third time the appellate court has reviewed matters arising from the client's exercise of the right of first refusal, and concluding the litigation in the client's favor. FirstMerit Bank, N.A. v. Suburban Auto Rebuilders, Inc., 2014 IL App (1st) 132748-U. See also Suburban Auto Rebuilders, Inc. v. Associated Tile Dealers Warehouse, Inc., 388 Ill. App. 3d 81 (1st Dist. 2009) (reversing summary judgment in favor of landlord); and No. 1-05-1335 (Supreme Court Rule 23 order, result reported at 363 Ill. App. 3d 1203 (1st Dist. 2006) (reversing summary judgment in favor of landlord, affirming summary judgment in favor of the firm's client on landlord's counterclaim).

In June 2014, a federal magistrate judge agreed with the firm's arguments, in an employment discrimination case, that assertions of privilege made by the defense were unfounded. Lee v. Chicago Youth Centers, --- F.R.D. ---, No. 12-cv-9245, 2014 WL 2618537 (N.D. Ill. June 10, 2014). The defendants objected to this ruling before the district court, and that court partially reversed the magistrate judge's order. The district court found that two of the contested documents were privileged, but remanded the matter to the assigned magistrate judge to determine whether the defendants had waived the privilege.

In October 2013, the firm won the dismissal with prejudice, on statute of limitations grounds, of claims brought against the developer of a suburban elderly housing project. Mann v. Bergman, et al. (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois). See also Mann v. Thomas Place, L.P., 2012 IL App (1st) 110625 (affirming dismissal of claims against other firm clients in the same litigation).

In September 2013, the firm secured a decision from the Illinois Appellate Court vacating a six-figure judgment and sanctions entered against several clients in a matter handled by predecessor counsel. The firm handled post-trial proceedings and the appeal. The case has been remanded to the circuit court.

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8