Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Selection of Published Appellate Victories

  • Hernandez v. Walgreen Company, 2015 IL App (1st) 142990
    Physician issued decedent several methadone prescriptions over 18-month period, which decedent filled at 2 pharmacies.  Decedent died, allegedly from methadone intoxication. Court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against pharmacies, based on lack of a recognized duty owed by defendant pharmacies. Duty to monitor a patient’s prescription history for “excessive” amounts of controlled substance cannot be inferred by provisions of Illinois Controlled Substances Act. Under the learned intermediary doctrine, pharmacies do not have duty to monitor a patient, make medical judgments, convey warnings to prescribing physician or decedent, or otherwise interject itself in physician-patient relationship.
  • Flint v. City of Belvidere, 791 F.3d 764, 766 (7th Cir. 2015)
    In this section 1983 action, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the City of Belvidere, the police department, and certain police officers. The plaintiff’s son was a police informant who was subsequently shot in what is now a cold case. The plaintiff sued the City of Belvidere and others under Section 1983, but plaintiff lacked any evidence that her son’s death was proximately caused by the defendant’s failure to keep his name confidential. Plaintiff failed to present facts to support her due process claim under the state-created danger doctrine. At best, plaintiff’s case boiled down to speculation, which was insufficient to reach a jury.
  • Perona v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 2014 IL App (1st) 130748
    In this class action alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (2002), Plaintiffs alleged that the Audi 5000 (model years 1984-1986) unintendedly accelerated due to a design defect.  The case was filed in 1987, shortly after the CBS “60 Minutes” television show featured the Audi 5000 in a bad light – a program for which CBS’s journalistic integrity came under harsh criticism.  After 25 years of litigation, the circuit court entered discovery rulings that limited Plaintiffs’ theories of wrongdoing, barred Plaintiffs’ disclosed experts as unreliable, and granted summary judgment to Audi. The Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment and also affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Plaintiffs leave to file a Seventh Amended Complaint.
  • Cieslewicz v. Forest Pres. Dist. of Cook Cnty., 2012 IL App (1st) 100801, 973 N.E.2d 370 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)
    The estate administrator and injured woman sued the forest preserve as a result of two separate dog attacks occurring on property owned by it. Upon reconsideration, the trial court granted the forest preserve's motion for summary judgment upon finding that the forest preserve was not an "owner" as defined by the Animal Control Act, 510 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (2002) (Act), and, was not liable under the Act for the injuries caused by the offending dogs. On appeal, the appellate court also found that the forest preserve was not an "owner" of the dogs as a matter of law and, thus, could not be found liable under the Act. It so concluded because it found that the evidence showed that the forest preserve was no more than a passive owner of the property temporarily inhabited by the dogs and that its employees did not exhibit any characteristics of having kept or harbored such animals on the property, as would be consistent with ownership pursuant to 510 ILCS 5/2.16 (2002) of the Act.
  • Bielskis v. Louisville Ladder, Inc., 663 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. Ill. 2011)
    In this product liability case, Plaintiff had fallen from a three-foot-high mini-scaffold when it collapsed at a worksite. Plaintiff had obtained the mini-scaffold seven years prior when his former employer gave it to him fully assembled. Plaintiff filed suit against Louisville Ladder under a product defect theory and alleged that Defendant failed to properly test and inspect the threaded stud of the caster stem that failed. In support of his theories, Plaintiff retained an expert who concluded that the stud failed due to a brittle facture caused by excess stress brought by over- tightening of the threaded caster stem. The District Court struck the expert because the expert's conclusions were not supported by data or testing to support the brittle facture theory. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Court of Appeals held the District Court "was within its discretion to conclude that [the expert's] methodology sounded more like the sort of '[t]alking off the cuff' -- without data or analysis -- that we have repeatedly characterized as insufficient." Without expert testimony, Plaintiff could not prove his case and summary judgment in Louisville Ladder's favor was affirmed.
  • R.M. Lucas v. The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co., 2011 Ill.App. (1st) 102955.
    This case arose from a gas explosion at R.M. Lucas's facility. R.M. Lucas filed a complaint against The Peoples Gas, but failed to diligently prosecute that complaint. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed as a discovery sanction under Supreme Court Rule 219. R.M. Lucas filed a section 2-1401 petition for post judgment relief and argued that its trial attorney did not advise it of the discovery served by The Peoples Gas and failed to advise it of the dismissal of the action. The Circuit Court denied the section 2-1401 petition, and R.M. Lucas appealed. On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the general rule that a party is not entitled to 2-1401 relief based on the negligence of its attorney. Moreover, the Appellate Court concluded that the dismissal could could not be overruled on a "equitable" basis for R.M. Lucas' trial attorney's inexplicable failure to respond to discovery and failure to inform R.M. Lucas of the dismissal order. Furthermore, the Appellate Court held that R.M. Lucas did not act diligently and failed to adequately monitor its case in light of its failure to discovery the dismissal of its negligence claims for four months. Finally, with regard to the underlying dismissal and Rule 219 discovery sanction, the Appellate Court held that the Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed R.M. Lucas' complaint where the discovery requests had been issued more than a year earlier, R.M. Lucas had failed to abide by numerous court order deadlines for responding to discovery, and R.M. Lucas failed to respond when given a final chance after dismissal according to Rule 219. While R.M. Lucas might still be able to recover under a legal malpractice theory against its trial counsel, it no longer had a claim against The Peoples Gas.
  • Arlin-Golf, LLC v. Village of Arlington Heights, 631 F.3d 818, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1188 (7th Cir. III.)
    Plaintiff property owners appealed a dismissal by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, of their complaint against defendants, a village and others, alleging that defendants' conduct resulted in financial losses to the owners as a result of the village implementing a tax district, which included the owners' property. The owners had previously instituted a state court suit against defendants, alleging that the tax district constituted a taking under Ill. Const. art. I, § 15. The parties settled that case, and the owners dismissed the case with prejudice. On review, the court affirmed. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. §1738, the court found that under a transactional test, the causes of action were the same for purposes of res judicata. The federal complaint sought recovery based on additional theories not mentioned in the state court complaint, but res judicata was nonetheless proper because, both complaints relied on the same operative facts. Further, the owners did not allege that any significant additional facts occurred between the dismissal of the state court suit and the filing of the federal suit. The present complaint relied on defendants' actions that resulted in the settlement agreement and not the execution of the agreement itself. Finally, the district court properly denied leave to amend the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) because any amendment would have been futile.
  • Salerno v. Innovative Surveillance Tech., Inc., 402 Ill. App. 3d 490 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist.2010)
  • Piser v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 938 N.E.2d 640 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)
  • Westfield Insurance v. CNH America, 399 Ill. App. 3d 219 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)
  • Adames v. Sheahan, 233 Ill. 2d 276, 909 N.E.2d 742 (Ill. 2009)
  • Muro v. Target Corp., 580 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. Ill. 2009)
  • Knapp v. Bulun, 392 Ill.App.3d 1018, 911 N.E.2d 541 (Ill.App.Ct. 2009)
  • Jones v. Chicago Cycle Center, 391 Ill.App.3d 101, 908 N.E.2d 150 (Ill.App.Ct. 2009)
  • Quigg v. Walgreen Co., 388 Ill. App. 3d 696, 905 N.E.2d 293 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)
  • Richardson v. Bond Drug Company of Illinois, 387 Ill. App. 3d 881, 901 N.E.2d 973 (Ill. App. Ct.2009)
  • Coole v. Central Area Recycling, 384 Ill.App.3d 390, 893 N.E.2d 303 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)
  • Karas v. Strevell, 227 Ill.2d 440, 884 N.E.2d 122 (2008)
  • Commercial Coin Laundry Sys. v. Loon Invs., LLC, 871, 375 Ill. App. 3d 26, 871 N.E.2d 898 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007)
  • Crumpton v. Walgreen Co., 375 Ill.App.3d 73, 871 N.E.2d 905 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007)
  • Zurich Ins. Co. v. Walsh Construction Co., 352 Ill. App. 3d 504, 816 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)

Class Action Practice Profile

As a member of the business litigation group and the environmental litigation group, Mr. Boehm's class action experience is active and varied. The following table provides a brief synopsis of past and pending class action litigation.

Consumer Fraud Act

  • Clemons v. Ferolito State Court, Dismissed
    Dispute related to marketing and sale of iced tea beverages. Dismissal obtained from trial court with no subsequent appeal.
  • Heger v. Attorney Title Guaranty Fund State Court, Class Settlement
    Dispute related to return of recording fees charged in real estate closings; favorable class settlement negotiated after contentious litigation.
  • Williams v. Lynch  State Court, Class Settlement
    Dispute related to amendment of car payment rates subsequent to purchase agreement; favorable class settlement negotiated after contentious litigation.
  • Xydakis v. Target Federal Court, Dismissed
    Dispute related to advertised price of product Being honored at store. See Xydakis v. Target, Inc., 333 F. Supp. 2d 683 (N.D. Ill. 2004) Xydakis v. Target, Inc., 350 F. Supp. 2d 748 (N.D. Ill. 2004)
  • Pio v. Bodyonics State Court, Dismissed
    Dispute related to efficacy of product advertised and sold by manufacturer. Dispute dismissed after five years of litigation when out-of-state counsel was alleged to be inadequate and local counsel withdrew.
  • Dunn v. Atkinson Federal Court, Individual Settlement
    Dispute related to advertised vacation packages. Dispute settled after Rule 68 offer of judgment was tendered prior to motion for class certification.
  • Perona v. Volkswagen  State Court, Summary Judgment
    Dispute related to alleged unintended acceleration of certain Audi vehicles. Alleged national class rejected and only an Illinois class was certified. Summary judgment was entered for Audi after the Circuit Court found Plaintiff's experts could not satisfy the Frye Standard.
  • Parks v. Windale State Court, Settlement
    Dispute related to bed bug infestation in 88 unit Apartment complex.
  • Hackett v. BMW NA Federal Court, Settlement
    Dispute related to alleged malfunctioning fuel pump.
  • Smith v. Volkswagen Federal Court, Settlement
    Dispute related to alleged defective wiring harness.

Fair Credit Reporting Act

  • Muro v. Target  Federal Court, Dismissed
    Dispute related to substitution of store card for VISA card. Summary judgment affirmed by Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.See Muro v. Target Corp., 580 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. Ill. 2009)
  • Acosta v. Target Federal Court, Granted Summary Judgment
    Dispute related to substitution of store card for VISA card.
  • Todd v. Target Federal Court, Dismissed 
    Dispute related to disclosure of customer Information on sales receipt.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act

  • Pollack v. Fitness State Court, Class Settlement
    Class action settlement obtained for less than $150,000, in dispute with exposure of more than $3,000,000.
  • CE Design v, Kallman State Court, Individual Settlement
    Individual settlement for less than $50,000 obtained after more than five years of litigation after development of convincing case against adequacy of class representative and class counsel in case with exposure of more than $10,000,000.
  • Loncarevic v. Stanley Foam State Court, Active
    Litigation ongoing in dispute involving exposure of more than $3,000,000.
  • Sather v. Cornerstorne State Court, Settlement
    Litigation ongoing in dispute involving exposure of more than $45,000,000; favorable settlement pending.

Toxic Tort

  • Muniz v. Arrow Gear Federal Court, Class Settlement
    Dispute related to diminution of property values due to contaminated drinking water. Class settlement negotiated with more than 10 other defendants.
  • Bendik v. Arrow Gear and Pote v. Arrow Gear State Court, Class Settlement
    Personal injury disputes related to injuries incurred from contaminated drinking water.