Cases
"One of the first things everyone wants to know
is what cases has the attorney actually tried and which of his cases
has resulted in a published decision from an appellate court."
Most cases are never tried. Even fewer cases make it to an appellate
court. Yet, one of the first things everyone wants to know is what cases
has the attorney actually tried and which of his cases has resulted
in a published decision from an appellate court. It makes sense. Unless
you have an attorney that can come through when it really matters -
- at trial and on appeal - - just how serious will the other side take
that attorney; and just how successful will that attorney be in negotiating
your case when the only phrase that seems to resonate with your opponent
is "we'll see you in court"?
Below is a listing of some of the more significant cases Gary Leydig
has taken to trial and argued on appeal. When available, we have included
links to the opinions.
Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts
of the USA
Minnesota Supply Company v. The Raymond Corporation.
Phil Dressler & Assoc., Inc. v. Hinsdale Racquet
Court Condominium Association,et al
American Family Insurance v. Dun Rite Construction
Company and Jerry Hiero
R & D Thiel, Inc. v. Hoffman Homes, et al..
Cardinal Sleep Centers, et al. v. Mouton, et al..
Kingbrook, Inc. v. Pupurs, et al..
In the Matter of the Application of the County Treasurer
(Mira Pavlovic, Petitioner)
Pyramid Controls Incorporated v. Siemens Industrial
Automation, Inc..
Perrin v. Messner.
To-Am Equipment Co., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift
America, Inc..
Stern v. Village of Schaumburg, et al..
Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Temco Corporation.
Cleveland Wrecking Company v. Central National
Bank, etc., et al.. Travelers Insurance Company
v. LaSalle National Bank as Trustee, et al..
Temco Corporation v. Itel Rail Corporation.
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Sullivan.
Landmark Properties, et al. v. RCM Development Corp.,
et al..
Bon Jour Travel Agency v. Best Travel, Inc..
Ortiz v. Forsythe, et al. and Rebaque v. Forsythe Racing,
Inc..
Ferro-Tech, Inc. v. Benetech, Inc., et al..
As the first appellate court in the country to address the issue, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that a
nonprofit organization, in this case a local Girl Scouts council, should
be afforded the same protections available to a for-profit business
under a state’s franchise/dealer protection statue. In a unanimous
decision, the court ruled that Wisconsin’s Fair Dealership Law
(WFDL), which protects “dealerships” from grantors who wish
to “terminate, cancel, fail to renew or substantially change the
competitive circumstances of a dealership agreement without good cause,”
was fully applicable to the efforts of Girl Scouts of the United States
of America to unilaterally remove sixty percent of the territory of
a local, Wisconsin council, Girl Scouts of Manitou Council.
The court ruled that the “WFDL expresses no concern for the ‘mission’
or other motivation underlying the sales in question; it asks only whether
sales occur. Nor does the statute draw any distinction between ‘for-profit’
and ‘not-for-profit’ entities. Its stated concern is with
‘fair business relations,’ and it is beyond dispute
that nonprofit corporations can be substantial businesses. Indeed, both
GSUSA and Manitou, notwithstanding their status as nonprofits, are multimillion-dollar
businesses possessing substantial assets and liabilities.”
Gary Leydig pursued this emergency, interlocutory appeal following
the district court’s denial of the motion for preliminary injunction.
After ordering an expedited briefing schedule and just three days after
hearing oral argument, the appellate court reversed the district court
and ordered the preliminary injunction in favor of Mr. Leydig’s
client. Click here to read the
court’s opinion.
This three week long jury trial arose out of the termination of Gary Leydig's client, a forklift dealership, by the manufacturer. The case was brought under a little used Minnesota statute which protects heavy and utility equipment dealers from their overreaching manufacturers. The jury found that the dealer had in fact been wrongfully terminated and returned a verdict in June of 2003 in favor of the client in the amount of $14,076,784 - - to the penny the amount of lost profits Gary Leydig had argued was due to his client. Concluding that a portion of that verdict contained an erroneous calculation of “pre-judgment interest”, the district court judge reduced the amount of the verdict and entered judgment in favor of the dealer in the amount of $12,864,117.54. In March of 2004, the trial judge entered a separate judgment in favor of Minnesota Supply for an additional $750,000 to cover its attorneys' fees and expenses. Click here to read that order. The manufacturer appealed and, on December 28, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on the wrongful termination claim in its entirety. Click here to see the brief filed by Minnesota Supply on appeal and here to read the Opinion of the 8th Circuit.
This case arose out of the persistent efforts of adjoining land owners
to interfere with and prevent Mr. Leydig’s client from lawfully
developing its property with five new luxury townhomes in the Village
of Hinsdale. To stall and prevent the development, the defendants asserted
everything from easements across the property to outright adversary ownership.
Their behavior forced the filing of suit in the Circuit Court for DuPage
County to obtain a declaration of the client’s rights in its property
and additional relief. On October 5, 2005, the court emphatically entered
judgment against the defendants on their various claims. Check here
to read the order.
Suit was brought by Gary Leydig against an Illinois corporation and its
president/sole shareholder for forgery and conversion of two drafts totaling
$121,849.58. Defendants denied there had been any forgery or conversion
of the drafts. The individual argued further that, even if there had been
a conversion, it arose out of corporate conduct and could not result in
personal liability. Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court Judge entered
a Memorandum Decision and Judgment finding the drafts had been converted
and further finding that the individual could not hide behind the veil
of the corporation for his own tortious conduct. Accordingly, the Court
entered judgment against the individual. Check here
to see a copy of the Court’s ruling.
This trial arose out of moneys owing to
Gary Leydig's client, a carpenter contracting business, from one of the Chicago
area's leading residential developers. The court entered judgment in favor of
Mr. Leydig's client in the amount of $1,147,000.
To avoid paying the judgment,
the developer and its owner undertook an elaborate scheme to hide and divert the
company's assets and bank accounts. Unable to obtain relief from the trial judge
to stop this unlawful conduct, Mr. Leydig took the matter up to the Illinois Appellate
Court. The Appellate Court agreed with Mr. Leydig's arguments and ordered the
trial court to enter personal judgments against the individual owner of the development
company for the amounts he had caused to be hidden and diverted. Click
here to read the Appellate Court's order.
In this and several related
actions, Mr. Leydig represented a licensed clinical psychologist trying to extricate
himself from a spoiled business and clinical relationship with a former "partner".
Injunction actions to prevent Mr. Leydig's client from opening his own, competing
clinics were successfully defended and defeated. Clinical fees that had been wrongfully
withheld by the former partner were fully recovered for the client. In this case, Gary Leydig represented the
purchaser of a large commercial property who was sued by a real estate broker
for commissions he alleged he was entitled to on the sale. The trial court entered
judgment in favor of Mr. Leydig's client; finding no commissions or fees of any
sort were due to the broker. The judgment was affirmed on appeal by the Second
District Appellate Court of Illinois. Click here
to read the opinion. Along the road to victory, this case was heard by the Illinois
Supreme Court on the issue of appellate jurisdiction. Click here
to read the Supreme Court's opinion. This case
arose out of the forced tax sale of real estate on which Gary Leydig's client
held the mortgage. Mr. Leydig proved his client had been the victim of an unlawful,
fraudulent conspiracy between the mortgagee and the tax sale purchaser - - a conspiracy
that was intended to effect a full avoidance of the client's mortgage. The trial
resulted in the tax sale being annulled and the mortgage fully protected. The
ruling was affirmed on appeal. In related litigation, Mr. Leydig proceeded to
foreclose his client's mortgage against the conspiratorial property owner. The
foreclosure and the trial court's award of attorneys' fees to Mr. Leydig's client
were also affirmed on appeal. (Schipporeit v. Azar). Gary
Leydig's client, an industrial automation systems distributor for Siemens, had
its distributorship abruptly terminated by the manufacturer under an "at
will" distributor agreement. Unfortunately, the client's original attorney
advised the client that the "at will" contract provision controlled
and that no cause of action existed. More than one year later, the client consulted
Mr. Leydig and learned that his distributorship could be construed as a "franchise"
under the Illinois Franchise Act and that there was a sound cause of action against
Siemens for wrongful termination under the Franchise Act. The Act, however, had
a one year statute of limitations. In an effort to salvage the client's just claim,
Mr. Leydig argued for a broad interpretation of the Act's statute of limitation.
That interpretation was not adopted by the trial court or the appellate court;
but in addressing the issues raised in the appeal, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit described Gary Leydig as "a Franchise Act
maven" and "one who . . . actually understands franchise law".
Click here
to read the opinion. This jury trial arose out of a serious
accident where Gary Leydig's client, with a blood alcohol level of .215, fell
through a defective exterior door of an apartment building and down a flight of
cement stairs. The client suffered traumatic brain injury, bi-frontal lobe contusions
and was placed in an extended medically induced coma. She also suffered neuropsychological
problems with her concentration, memory and emotional functions. The jury returned
a verdict for the client and against the property owner/landlord in the amount
of $513,000, which was reduced 50% due to her intoxication.
This
case arose out of another wrongful termination of one of a forklift dealership.
The case was tried to the jury on the hotly contested issue of whether or not
the forklift dealer, was a "franchise" under the Illinois Franchise
Act. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Leydig's client in the amount
of $1,525,000. That verdict was then increased by the trial judge by another $246,000
to compensate the dealer for its attorneys' fees and expenses. The verdict and
judgment were affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
This appellate court decision has become one of the leading decisions in the country
for the liberal interpretation of state franchise laws for the protection of dealerships
and distributorships. Click
here to read the opinion. Gary Leydig represented this Holiday Inn licensee in an action
brought to recover compensation from the Village following the Village's taking
of the client's commercial property in violation of a special ordinance. Following
a bench trial on numerous equitable theories of recovery, the court entered judgment
in favor of the client for the full amount sought. Gary Leydig defended the
owner of a small fleet of private railroad cars from the railroad's claim of overpayments
of "railcar car-hire earnings". The railroad's case was rejected by
the trial court at trial and judgment was entered for Mr. Leydig's client. Gary Leydig
brought this breach of contract and mechanic's lien foreclosure suit on behalf
of his demolition contractor client. Following a multi-week bench trial, judgment
was rendered for the client in excess of $400,000. The award included base contract
claims, as well as "extras" and delay damages. Additionally, judgment
was entered against the defendants on their counterclaim alleging $1,000,000 in
delay damages. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. The appeal is also noteworthy
since it was the first decision in Illinois to find demolition as a lienable "improvement"
to property. This was a foreclosure of a $15,500,000 commercial
mortgage held by Mr. Leydig's client. The case went up on appeal on an issue of
first impression regarding the application of Illinois' mortgagee-in-possession
statute in connection with mortgages securing commercial loans. Mr. Leydig's interpretation
of the statute and the trial court's order placing the client in possession of
the property pending the foreclosure action were affirmed by the appellate court. In this case, Mr. Leydig's client found
itself between a rock and a hard place. The client had agreed to sell 65 railcars
to a third party in reliance on Itel's oral promise to first sell those 65 railcars
to the client. When Itel refused to acknowledge the existence of its oral promise,
the client was unable to perform on its contract to sell to the third party. The
third party sued Mr. Leydig's client for breach of contract, and sought damages
in excess of $1,000,000. Mr. Leydig sued Itel on behalf of the client and a jury
trial ensued. The jury returned a verdict for the client, finding that there was
in fact an oral contract and that Itel had breached it. Following that verdict,
Itel paid in full the claims of the frustrated third party buyer. On behalf of his bank client
(through its fidelity bonding company) suit was brought against individuals who
had fraudulently conspired to illegally induce substantial commercial loans from
the bank. The trial judge, following a lengthy bench trial, refused to find the
existence of the civil conspiracy. On appeal to the Seventh Circuit, Mr. Leydig
and Donald Mrozek of Hinshaw & Clubertson, obtained a reversal of the trial
court and an order directing the trial judge to enter judgment in favor of the
client based upon the evidence already established at the trial. On remand to
the trial court, judgment was entered for Mr. Leydig's client in the amount of
$1,058,524, plus an additional $947,380 in pre-judgment interest. This was a partnership
dissolution and accounting action, following an unhappy parting of the partners.
The accounting adopted by the trial judge was the one advocated by Gary Leydig
on behalf of his client. In this case, the plaintiff sought specific performance
from Mr. Leydig's client of an alleged contract to purchase the plaintiff's travel
agency business. Following a bench trial, the judge found the alleged "contract"
was actually an unenforceable letter of intent. Accordingly, judgment was entered
for Mr. Leydig's client. This was a jury trial arising out of a claim
that two Lamborghini sports cars belonging to Gary Leydig's clients (an Indy Race
Car driver and his father) had been converted and stolen by their former business
partners. The defendant counterclaimed and sought recovery of $205,000 for an
alleged breach of the Indy Car racing contract that existed between the parties.
The jury rendered verdicts in favor of Mr. Leydig's clients on all claims and
counterclaims. In connection with a third Lamborghini automobile, Mr. Leydig obtained
summary judgment for his clients prior to trial on the balance due under a purchase
contract with one of the defendants. That judgment was appealed by the losing
defendant. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of Mr. Leydig's
client. This appeal is of further note since it was the first time an Illinois
appellate court had addressed the propriety of "set-offs" of unrelated
claims under the Uniform Commercial Code. In this TRO and preliminary injunction hearing,
Gary Leydig successfully defended his clients from claims that they had misappropriated
the plaintiff's trade secrets and confidential business information in connection
with the design and manufacture of "turbulators."
return to the top
|
