Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Obtained partial summary judgment in favor of an airline client in a breach of contract dispute argued in federal court. In this airline dispute, a passenger sued the airline for breach of contract and violation of the Montreal Convention and EU 261 (the European Union Regulation No. 261/2004) after her international flight to Chicago was delayed by several hours.  The plaintiff alleged that the delayed flight caused her to miss a family reunion and a job interview for a position that had a salary of $45,000 per year.  She also charged that the delayed flight led to her feeling ill and missing three days of work.  Plaintiff also claimed additional expenditures for meals, local transportation and other items due to the delay.  The plaintiff initially sought to represent a class action in this airline dispute, but abandoned her class claims.In their motion for partial summary judgment, Johnson & Bell argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation under EU 261 as the regulation is not enforceable in the United States.  Johnson & Bell also sought a ruling that their client was limited to compensating the plaintiff no more than $695 under the Montreal Convention.  The court agreed with defense’s argument and granted its motion for partial summary judgment.
  • Obtained summary judgment in favor of a municipality in Northern Illinois and two of its police officers.  In this federal court dispute, plaintiff alleged that the officers used excessive force in arresting her, resulting in injuries, including a broken arm. Plaintiff testified she was dragged out of a car and thrown to the ground face first. The arrest was captured on video by a squad car camera. Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $240,000 against the officers for making the arrest. The court granted summary judgment for Johnson & Bell’s clients, finding that the motion established that the officers were justified in using force on an actively resisting suspect and the officers did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.