Representative Experience Archive
We defended our client against claims for negligence and strict products liability. After discovery and the use of expert witness opinion, we determined that the chain was not sold or manufactured by our client’s company and that the plaintiff may have misused the chain in carrying out his work. We filed a motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff elected to dismiss us.
Amundsen Davis’s real estate team represented a client who sought to create a New Urbanist design development upon ground leased for an 18-hole championship golf course.
Moses Suarez obtained a favorable defense settlement for hospital client in a catastrophic birth injury case in federal court involving OBGYN physicians employed by a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC).
Amundsen Davis represented the buyer in a stock purchase transaction involving the seller’s ESOP. The project involved the termination of the ESOP and the distribution of benefits to participants.
Our client, the manufacturer of the plexiglass window on the machine, was defended against claims for negligence and strict products liability. After considerable discovery and the retention of an expert witness, we were able to convince plaintiff’s counsel to voluntarily dismiss our client.
The bond financing was necessary to finance significant off-site improvements, including a major sanitary sewer line, for which conventional financing was not available.
Moses Suarez represented health care providers before the Illinois various disciplinary boards of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR). He successfully defended a primary care physician alleged to have failed to order follow-up chest x-ray after a hospital admission for diagnosis and treatment of pneumonia.
Amundsen Davis obtained summary judgment on behalf of premises owners for a wrongful death and survival action filed against them by the mother of a five-year-old boy who drowned in the defendants’ backyard pool.
The refinancing allowed the client to significantly reduce operating costs and as a part of the refinancing certain minority interests in the enterprise were acquired.
In this case, the plaintiff claimed that our client, an embedded mechanical contractor, defectively constructed cooling water process piping, causing water hammer and emergency shutdown of the plaintiff’s facility, allegedly resulting on $30,000,000 in damages. Complex issues involved oil refinery processing and financial and consequential damages forensics. This matter reached a confidential settlement.