LITIGATIONRESULTS - Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC
LITIGATIONRESULTS - Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC
LITIGATIONRESULTS - Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>LITIGATIONRESULTS</strong><br />
2012<br />
A compilation of client success
<strong>LITIGATIONRESULTS</strong><br />
A compilation of client success<br />
2012
FOREWORD<br />
4 LITIGATION RESULTS
Opportunity and risk are part of business. When your business interests are<br />
at stake, it’s important that your legal counsel sees the big picture before<br />
recommending action.<br />
At the core of <strong>Whyte</strong> <strong>Hirschboeck</strong> <strong>Dudek</strong> S.C.’s Litigation Practice Group<br />
are highly skilled lawyers who protect the interests of our clients. First and<br />
foremost, however, we are business advisers who work with you to develop<br />
the best strategy to meet your objectives. Should the need arise, we are<br />
committed to vigorously defending or prosecuting lawsuits—be they complex<br />
or straightforward—and have an impressive winning record to show for it. In<br />
fact, in 2011 Wisconsin Super Lawyers® named WHD the Top Large Law Firm<br />
for Litigation in Wisconsin, and most recently, WHD was recognized by Apple<br />
Inc. as a 2013 Go-To Law Firm for Intellectual Property Litigation.<br />
As lawsuits can jeopardize a business’ reputation and disrupt operations, our<br />
goal is to keep our clients from ever reaching that point. By identifying and<br />
helping to manage our clients’ risks, lawsuits can be prevented. When they<br />
are unavoidable, we are equipped to handle them.<br />
When it makes sense to take a case to trial, we welcome the opportunity—<br />
and we achieve results. We invite you to review this sampling of our work from<br />
the past 12 months. We hope it will inspire you to work with us in the future.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Ross A. Anderson<br />
Cynthia L. Buchko<br />
Francis H. LoCoco<br />
Litigation Practice Group Leaders<br />
LITIGATION RESULTS 5
TABLE OF<br />
CONTENTS
Representative Achievements<br />
WHD Wins Jury Verdict of Patent Infringement 9<br />
WHD Obtains Reversal from Court of Appeals in Priority Dispute 10<br />
WHD Defeats Federal Receiver in Attempted “Clawback” Action 13<br />
WHD Successfully Defends Estate Beneficiaries Against<br />
Large Wisconsin Institution 14<br />
WHD Saves Interstate Pipeline Company $5.6 Million 17<br />
WHD Successfully Defends Seven-Figure Insurance Claim in the Seventh Circuit 18<br />
WHD Wins Summary Judgment for its Client – Twice! 21<br />
WHD Successfully Defends Claims of Conspiracy, Tortious<br />
Interference with Contract and Defamation 22<br />
WHD Obtains Injunctive Relief Preserving Reinsurance Trust<br />
Fund Pending Arbitration Under Reinsurance Agreements 25<br />
WHD Invalidates a Restrictive Covenant Not to Compete<br />
in the Accounting Industry 26<br />
WHD Obtains Directed Verdict at Close of Plaintiffs’ Evidence 29<br />
WHD Defeats Federal Court Class Action Claim 30<br />
WHD Obtains Summary Judgment for Local Festival: Court Applies<br />
Wisconsin’s Recreational Immunity Statute to Public Sidewalk 33<br />
WHD Obtains Summary Judgment in Personal Injury<br />
Case Arising from Loading/Unloading Operations 34<br />
WHD Obtains Defense Verdict 37<br />
WHD Dismisses Counterclaims Then Prevails at Trial 38<br />
WHD Successfully Obtains and Defends Grant of Summary Judgment<br />
on Grounds That Plaintiff Offers No Credible Exposure Evidence 41<br />
Honors & ACCOLADES 42<br />
Litigation Attorneys & Paralegals 48
WHD Wins Jury Verdict of<br />
Patent Infringement<br />
Nowakowski<br />
McIntyre<br />
In October 2012, WHD obtained a jury verdict of patent infringement in favor<br />
of its client, Havco Wood Products LLC (Havco) in Havco Wood Products<br />
LLC v. Industrial Hardwood Products, Inc. Havco filed its complaint in late<br />
2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, asserting<br />
that its primary competitor, Industrial Hardwood Products, Inc. (IHP), infringed<br />
a number of claims of five patents owned by Havco relating to reinforced<br />
wood-composite truck flooring. Havco had invested years and a substantial<br />
amount of money developing its reinforced wood-composite truck flooring<br />
and a process to manufacture it on a commercial scale. IHP began selling<br />
its infringing reinforced wood-composite truck flooring in 2010. After nearly<br />
two years of fact and expert discovery, two claim construction hearings and<br />
two summary judgment motions of non-infringement brought by IHP, the<br />
case finally went to trial before a jury on Oct. 22, 2012. A unanimous jury<br />
found that IHP’s competing product infringed all asserted claims of four of<br />
Havco’s patents (the fifth had been dismissed earlier in the case). The parties<br />
stipulated to damages for IHP’s past infringing sales.<br />
Litigation Type: Intellectual property litigation<br />
Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin<br />
Lead WHD Counsel: Kenneth Nowakowski and Jeffrey McIntyre<br />
Principal WHD Team Members: Kenneth Nowakowski, Jeffrey McIntyre,<br />
Gary Plotecher, Melissa Caulum Williams, Barbara Zabawa, Melinda Giftos,<br />
Cindi Wittlinger (paralegal – litigation support specialist), Cheryl Louis (paralegal)<br />
Practice Areas Involved: Intellectual Property, Litigation<br />
LITIGATION RESULTS 9
WHD Obtains Reversal<br />
from Court of Appeals in<br />
Priority Dispute<br />
In Multicircuits, Inc. v. Michael P. Grunsted, et al., WHD was retained by<br />
Fidelity National Title Group, Inc. to represent its insured, CitiMortgage, Inc.<br />
(Citi), in a dispute regarding the priority of its mortgage over a mortgage held<br />
by Multicircuits, Inc. Multicircuits commenced a foreclosure action in which<br />
it sought to foreclose the interest held by Citi in the same property. After the<br />
owners of the property consented to the entry of a judgment of foreclosure in<br />
favor of Multicircuits, Citi and Multicircuits each moved for summary judgment<br />
alleging that its respective mortgage was superior to the other.<br />
During discovery, WHD determined that when Multicircuits obtained an<br />
assignment of its mortgage from Associated Bank, it was not assigned<br />
the promissory note, which the mortgage secured. While the Multicircuits’<br />
mortgage was recorded before the Citi mortgage, Citi argued that its mortgage<br />
was entitled to priority based upon equitable subrogation and on the grounds<br />
that Multicircuits could not enforce its mortgage because it did not hold the<br />
promissory note, and therefore, did not have standing to enforce its mortgage.<br />
The trial court held that Multicircuits’ mortgage was entitled to priority over Citi’s<br />
mortgage pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 706.11 because it had been recorded first.<br />
The trial court rejected Citi’s argument that it was entitled to priority based upon<br />
equitable subrogation and held that whether Multicircuits was assigned the<br />
promissory note was a “red herring.” The trial court also denied Citi’s request<br />
to stay the sheriff’s sale of the property pending Citi’s appeal, forcing Citi to<br />
purchase the property at the sheriff’s sale to preserve its rights.<br />
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and found entirely in<br />
Citi’s favor, finding that because Multicircuits was not assigned the promissory<br />
note or underlying debt secured by its mortgage, it could not enforce its<br />
mortgage, and therefore, could not possibly have priority over the Citi<br />
mortgage. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court, ordering<br />
that Multicircuits refund all proceeds it received from the sheriff’s sale to Citi, but<br />
not disturbing the trial court’s order confirming the sheriff’s sale in Citi’s favor.<br />
ANDERSON<br />
posnanski<br />
Litigation Type: Real estate, creditors’ rights<br />
Courts: Winnebago County Circuit Court, District II Court of Appeals<br />
Lead WHD Counsel: Ross Anderson and Timothy Posnanski<br />
Principal WHD Team Members: Ross Anderson, Timothy Posnanski<br />
Practice Areas Involved: Litigation; Real Estate; Consumer Financial<br />
Services; Business Restructuring, Creditors’ Rights & Bankruptcy<br />
10 LITIGATION RESULTS
WHD Defeats Federal<br />
Receiver In Attempted<br />
“Clawback” Action<br />
arnold<br />
liotta<br />
WHD successfully defended its client, a fund investor, in federal court from<br />
fraudulent transfer and unjust enrichment claims seeking recovery of seven<br />
figures worth of payments received before one of the largest investment<br />
fund failures in Wisconsin history. The complaint was drafted by a Chicago<br />
firm, and had the Securities and Exchange Commission’s backing. WHD<br />
convinced the court to dismiss the complaint before discovery opened,<br />
obtaining judgment in the client’s favor on a motion to dismiss, and on a<br />
subsequent motion for reconsideration.<br />
Litigation Type: Federal receivership attempted<br />
“clawback” action<br />
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin<br />
Lead WHD Counsel: Bruce Arnold and Jeffrey Liotta<br />
Principal WHD Team Members: Bruce Arnold, Jeffrey Liotta,<br />
Patrick Harvey, Debra Prim (paralegal)<br />
Practice Areas Involved: Litigation; Business Restructuring,<br />
Creditors’ Rights & Bankruptcy<br />
LITIGATION RESULTS 13
WHD Successfully Defends<br />
ESTATE Beneficiaries Against<br />
Large Wisconsin Institution<br />
WHD successfully defended the beneficiaries of a $9 million estate against<br />
a large Wisconsin institution in a will contest that involved complex issues<br />
of testamentary capacity, proper execution of wills, and standing to sue.<br />
The clients were beneficiaries of their father’s will executed shortly before his<br />
death. After such will was admitted to probate, the Wisconsin institution—a<br />
beneficiary under a prior will—sued to overturn the latest will, alleging that the<br />
latest will was invalid because the decedent lacked testamentary capacity<br />
and that the will was procured by the clients’ undue influence. In addition<br />
to testamentary capacity and undue influence claims, this litigation included<br />
disputes over legal issues of first impression regarding the requirements<br />
for execution of a will under Wisconsin’s adaptation of the Uniform Probate<br />
Code and regarding a third party’s right to compel an autopsy for purposes of<br />
discovery in civil litigation. The case was successfully settled after a two-day<br />
mediation following more than a year and a half of litigation. At the end of the<br />
mediation, the clients walked away with a dismissal of the objection to will in<br />
exchange for what amounted to the expense of taking the matter through trial.<br />
halley<br />
tidwall<br />
Litigation Type: Will contest – trust and estate litigation<br />
Court: Milwaukee County Circuit Court<br />
Lead WHD Counsel: Philip Halley and Karen Tidwall<br />
Principal WHD Team Members: Philip Halley, Karen Tidwall,<br />
Pamela Price (paralegal)<br />
Practice Area Involved: Trust, Estate & Fiduciary Litigation<br />
14 LITIGATION RESULTS
WHD saves interstate pipeline<br />
company $5.6 million<br />
pyper<br />
buchko<br />
In Gary Poeppel Living Trust v. Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership<br />
(Enbridge), Jefferson County Circuit Court Case No. 2009-CV-365, Enbridge<br />
constructed two interstate crude oil pipelines through the plaintiff’s property<br />
in 2007 and 2008. The property had two existing pipelines in the same<br />
easement corridor that were constructed in 1968 and 1997. After the 2007-<br />
2008 construction, the plaintiff opposed Enbridge’s drain tile system repair<br />
design and, thus, water problems arose on the property. The plaintiff claimed<br />
the pipelines were buried at insufficient depths, and the only way the property<br />
could be properly remediated was to lower the pipelines, which would have<br />
cost Enbridge in excess of $5.6 million. The plaintiff asked the court to order<br />
Enbridge, represented by WHD, to lower the pipelines. While Enbridge agreed<br />
that it was obligated to repair the drain tile, Enbridge claimed that the repairs<br />
were not done after construction because of the plaintiff’s conduct, namely,<br />
the demand that the pipelines be lowered. Enbridge sought access to the<br />
plaintiff’s property to install its proposed drain tile system to remedy the<br />
drainage problems and remediate the property. After a three-day trial, Judge<br />
Hue in Jefferson County Circuit Court rejected the plaintiff’s contention that<br />
Enbridge should be ordered to lower the pipelines, found that Enbridge’s<br />
drain tile system design would adequately drain the property for cultivation,<br />
and entered an order giving Enbridge access to the property to install its<br />
proposed drain tile system. The positive outcome saved Enbridge more than<br />
$5.6 million.<br />
Litigation Type: Specific performance of an easement<br />
Court: Jefferson County Circuit Court<br />
Lead WHD Counsel: Thomas Pyper and Cynthia Buchko<br />
Principal WHD Team Members: Thomas Pyper, Cynthia Buchko,<br />
Melissa Caulum Williams, Erin Keesecker, Cindi Wittlinger (paralegal – litigation<br />
support specialist), Cheryl Louis (paralegal)<br />
Practice Area Involved: Litigation<br />
LITIGATION RESULTS 17
WHD Successfully defends<br />
seven-figure insurance claim<br />
in the seventh circuit<br />
In Protective Life Ins. Co. v. B&K Enterprizes, LLC, et. al., WHD represented<br />
B&K in a contested dispute over the proceeds of a seven-figure insurance<br />
claim. Among others, the case raised novel questions of contract<br />
interpretation and reformation law, application of Limited Liability Company<br />
(LLC) law, creditors’ rights during and after an LLC ceased doing business,<br />
and the rights of a receiver under Wisconsin Statute Ch. 128. After<br />
successfully convincing the district court to rule in B&K’s favor on crossmotions<br />
for summary judgment, WHD successfully convinced the Seventh<br />
Circuit Court of Appeals that B&K was the sole party entitled to the sevenfigure<br />
insurance proceeds.<br />
Litigation Type: Contract interpretation<br />
Court: Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals<br />
Lead WHD Counsel: Ross Anderson and Patrick Harvey<br />
Principal WHD Team Members: Ross Anderson, Patrick Harvey,<br />
Daryl Diesing, Peter Sewell (paralegal)<br />
Practice Areas Involved: Litigation; Business Restructuring,<br />
Creditors’ Rights & Bankruptcy<br />
anderson<br />
Harvey<br />
18 LITIGATION RESULTS
WHD Wins Summary Judgment<br />
for its Client – Twice!<br />
mcintyre<br />
godar<br />
In December 2006, WHD client Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.<br />
(Saint-Gobain) terminated an employee, Kevin Kasten, under the company’s<br />
progressive discipline policy for time clock violations. Nearly a year later,<br />
Mr. Kasten filed a retaliation complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act<br />
(FLSA), asserting he was fired for his complaints about alleged underpayment<br />
of wages due to time clock locations. The district court dismissed Kasten’s<br />
complaint on Saint-Gobain’s motion for summary judgment, holding an<br />
employee’s oral complaint was not protected conduct under the FLSA.<br />
Mr. Kasten appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed<br />
Judge Barbara Crabb’s ruling that the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA was<br />
not triggered by the oral complaint of an employee and that the FLSA required<br />
a written complaint. Mr. Kasten petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court and asked<br />
the court to consider the issue of whether a wage-related oral complaint by an<br />
employee is sufficient to trigger the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA. The<br />
U.S. Supreme Court, by a 6-2 vote, reversed the Seventh Circuit and held that<br />
a reasonably clear oral complaint is sufficient to give an employer notice of a<br />
wage-related grievance and trigger the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA.<br />
The case was then remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Western District<br />
of Wisconsin. WHD again filed a motion for summary judgment on a new<br />
issue created by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, and re-asserted the “no<br />
retaliation as a matter of law” argument since Mr. Kasten was terminated for<br />
policy violations, not his alleged wage-related complaints. Judge Crabb granted<br />
WHD’s second motion for summary judgment and held that the plaintiff failed to<br />
make a prima facie case of retaliation and dismissed the case.<br />
The victory nullified the risk of a potential $1 million verdict at trial, much of<br />
which would have been the plaintiff’s attorney fees had WHD lost on liability.<br />
Litigation Type: Employment litigation<br />
Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (remanded<br />
by U.S. Supreme Court)<br />
Lead WHD Counsel: Jeffrey McIntyre and Thomas Godar<br />
Principal WHD Team Members: Jeffrey McIntyre, Thomas Godar,<br />
Barbara Zabawa, Erin Keesecker, Cindi Wittlinger (paralegal – litigation<br />
support specialist), Cheryl Louis (paralegal)<br />
Practice Area Involved: Labor & Employment, Litigation<br />
LITIGATION RESULTS 21
WHD Successfully Defends<br />
Claims of Conspiracy,<br />
Tortious Interference with<br />
Contract and Defamation<br />
In Quad/Graphics, Inc. v. One2One Communications, LLC and Bruce<br />
Heverly, et al., WHD represented the former management group of Openfirst,<br />
LLC, a direct mail and billing statement production company which was<br />
acquired by Quad/Graphics, Inc. in 2006. In 2002, Openfirst had entered<br />
into a contractual arrangement with Bruce Heverly, who had contacts in the<br />
cable television services industry. Under the arrangement, Mr. Heverly would<br />
procure customer contracts for billing statement processing and printing to<br />
be performed by Openfirst in Milwaukee. In 2007, Openfirst terminated its<br />
relationship with Mr. Heverly and his company, One2One Communications,<br />
LLC, after it discovered that One2One Communications and Mr. Heverly were<br />
diverting business from Openfirst to a production facility in Bolingbrook, Ill.,<br />
owned by One2One Communications.<br />
Quad/Graphics commenced suit against Bruce Heverly and One2One<br />
Communications, for, among other things, breach of contract, breach of<br />
fiduciary duty, and tortious interference with contract. Mr. Heverly and One2One<br />
Communications counterclaimed against Quad/Graphics, and filed a third-party<br />
complaint against the former management group of Openfirst, alleging claims<br />
for tortious interference with contract, defamation, and conspiracy to willfully<br />
or maliciously injure Mr. Heverly’s reputation, trade or business in violation of<br />
Wis. Stat. § 134.01. The third-party claims were based upon statements made<br />
by the management group to Openfirst’s customers to save their business<br />
after discovering that the third-party plaintiffs had been diverting business to<br />
the Bolingbrook facility. One2One Communications and Bruce Heverly sought<br />
compensatory and punitive damages against the management group for an<br />
amount in excess of $20 million.<br />
After a two-week jury trial presided over by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller in the<br />
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the jury returned a<br />
verdict on the third-party claims entirely in favor of the management group<br />
and their former company, Openfirst, LLC.<br />
greer<br />
posnanski<br />
Litigation Type: Breach of contract<br />
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin<br />
Lead WHD Counsel: James Greer and Timothy Posnanski<br />
Principal WHD Team Members: James Greer, Timothy Posnanski,<br />
Pamela Price (paralegal)<br />
Practice Areas Involved: Litigation<br />
22 LITIGATION RESULTS
WHD Obtains Injunctive<br />
Relief Preserving<br />
Reinsurance Trust Fund<br />
Pending Arbitration Under<br />
Reinsurance Agreements<br />
Daugherty<br />
WHD successfully obtained preliminary injunctive relief pending arbitration in a<br />
dispute between its client, a reinsurer, and the defendant, a mortgage insurance<br />
company, where the defendant sought to withdraw funds from the trust<br />
established under reinsurance agreements between the parties, the effect of<br />
which would be to catastrophically affect the reinsurer’s net worth and viability.<br />
After injunctive relief was initially granted, the defendant agreed to submit to the<br />
arbitration process called for by the agreements, leaving the trust fund intact,<br />
and the dispute was later settled on terms favorable to WHD’s client.<br />
Litigation Type: Business/insurance litigation injunctive relief<br />
Court: Milwaukee County Circuit Court<br />
Lead WHD Counsel: Donald Daugherty<br />
Principal WHD Team Members: Donald Daugherty, Peter Sewell<br />
(paralegal), Pamela Price (paralegal)<br />
Practice Areas Involved: Business & Commercial Litigation<br />
LITIGATION RESULTS 25
whd invalidates a restrictive<br />
covenant NOT TO COMPETE in<br />
the accounting industry<br />
In Diversified Services of Wisconsin, Inc., et al. v. AJ Restaurant Accounting,<br />
LLC, et al., Dane County Circuit Court Case No. 09 CV 5958, several<br />
shareholders and other professionals departed from the diversified accounting<br />
firm of Suby, Von Haden & Associates, S.C. (SVA). The former employees,<br />
represented by WHD, all had employment agreements containing a restrictive<br />
covenant precluding post-employment competition with SVA. SVA claimed in<br />
excess of $3 million for alleged violations of the restrictive covenant. SVA also<br />
claimed that Wis. Stat. § 103.465, the Wisconsin statute requiring heightened<br />
scrutiny to restrictive covenants, was not applicable because the departing<br />
employees were high-level employees who negotiated their employment<br />
agreements. On a motion for summary judgment, the court ruled that the<br />
restrictive covenant not to compete in the employment agreements was<br />
governed by Wis. Stat. § 103.465 and further held that the restrictive covenant<br />
was overly broad and unenforceable as a matter of law.<br />
Litigation Type: Contract interpretation<br />
Court: Dane County Circuit Court<br />
Lead WHD Counsel: Thomas Pyper and Cynthia Buchko<br />
Principal WHD Team Members: Thomas Pyper, Cynthia Buchko,<br />
Melissa Caulum Williams, Erin Keesecker<br />
Practice Area Involved: Litigation<br />
pyper<br />
buchko<br />
26 LITIGATION RESULTS
WHD Obtains Directed Verdict<br />
at Close of Plaintiffs’ Evidence<br />
laffey<br />
THOMAS PAGELS<br />
WHD obtained a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiffs’ case for its client,<br />
a pass-through supplier of asbestos-containing pipe insulation. The plaintiffs<br />
argued that the decedent, the wife of a school custodian, was exposed to<br />
asbestos-containing products through laundering her husband’s work clothes.<br />
The case was tried to a judge who was new to the civil bench. Over seven days<br />
of trial, the plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to have their case decided<br />
by a jury, despite WHD’s presentation of school records that demonstrated that<br />
if the custodian was exposed to asbestos, the schools had not specified and<br />
used a product that WHD’s client did not sell. WHD argued that because the<br />
plaintiffs had not produced any credible evidence of the decendent’s exposure<br />
to its client’s products, it should be dismissed. The trial court agreed, dismissing<br />
the entire case and granting judgment in favor of the supplier.<br />
Litigation Type: Toxic tort litigation, product liability litigation<br />
Court: Milwaukee County Circuit Court<br />
Lead WHD Counsel: Jack Laffey and Sarah Thomas Pagels<br />
Principal WHD Team Members: Jack Laffey, Sarah Thomas Pagels,<br />
Tammy Klein (paralegal)<br />
Practice Areas Involved: Toxic Tort Litigation & Consultation<br />
LITIGATION RESULTS 29
WHD Defeats Federal Court<br />
Class Action Claim<br />
WHD obtained summary judgment in its East Coast client’s favor in a federal<br />
court class action involving allegations that the client’s employment practices<br />
violated various provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In winning on<br />
summary judgment, WHD convinced the district court to disregard seemingly<br />
on-point case law from another federal appellate court, as well as opinion<br />
letters from the Federal Trade Commission.<br />
Litigation Type: Class action<br />
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin<br />
Lead WHD Counsel: Frank Gumina and Patrick Harvey<br />
Principal WHD Team Members: Frank Gumina, Patrick Harvey,<br />
Steven Stanaszak, Peter Sewell (paralegal)<br />
Practice Areas Involved: Labor & Employment, Litigation<br />
gumina<br />
HARVEY<br />
30 LITIGATION RESULTS
WHD Obtains Summary<br />
Judgment for Local Festival:<br />
Court Applies Wisconsin’s<br />
Recreational Immunity Statute<br />
to Public Sidewalk<br />
schmidt<br />
WHD obtained summary judgment in favor of its client, a local ethnic festival.<br />
The plaintiffs, a married couple, had attended mass at the festival and<br />
departed shortly thereafter. They exited the festival and, in returning to their<br />
car, walked on a public sidewalk along the perimeter of the Maier Festival<br />
Grounds. About 10-15 minutes after leaving the festival and while walking<br />
on the sidewalk, an unexpected gust of wind blew over a large A-frame sign,<br />
which was owned and placed on the sidewalk by the festival to identify the<br />
entrance to the festival’s parking lot. The sign knocked the wife to the ground.<br />
She sustained severe injuries, incurring $155,000 in medical expenses and<br />
likely needing a knee replacement in the future as a result of the injuries.<br />
Under Wisconsin’s recreational immunity statute, a nonprofit organization (like<br />
the festival) that “owns, leases or occupies property” or has a recreational<br />
agreement with another owner of property does not owe a duty to keep the<br />
property safe for recreational activities; inspect the property; or warn of an<br />
unsafe condition, use, or activity on the property to persons entering the<br />
property to engage in a recreational activity. A person who is injured while<br />
engaging in a “recreational activity” on the owner’s property cannot hold<br />
the owner liable for the injury. WHD convinced the court that although the<br />
festival did not “own or lease” the public sidewalk, it “occupied” the sidewalk<br />
by virtue of placing the sign on it. Additionally, WHD persuaded the court<br />
that the couple was still engaged in a recreational activity at the time of the<br />
accident despite the fact that they had departed the festival because the act<br />
of returning to their vehicle was inextricably linked to the recreational activity of<br />
attending the festival.<br />
Litigation Type: Premises liability/personal injury<br />
Court: Milwaukee County Circuit Court<br />
Lead WHD Counsel: Pamela Schmidt<br />
Principal WHD Team Members: Pamela Schmidt, Barbara Zabawa,<br />
Nida Shakir (summer associate), Pamela Price (paralegal)<br />
Practice Areas Involved: Personal Injury Defense<br />
LITIGATION RESULTS 33
WHD Obtains Summary<br />
Judgment in Personal Injury<br />
Case Arising from Loading/<br />
Unloading Operations<br />
WHD received a summary judgment decision in favor of its client, a<br />
transportation service provider. The plaintiff, one of WHD’s client’s employees,<br />
was seriously injured as he made a delivery. He had backed up his truck to<br />
the loading dock and was standing off to the side near the bottom of the dock<br />
when an employee of the company receiving the delivery ran over his foot<br />
with a forklift. The foot, nearly lost during the incident, ballooned to almost<br />
twice the size as his other foot. The plaintiff sued the company receiving the<br />
delivery and two of its employees. WHD’s client was named as a defendant<br />
because it had a worker’s compensation lien. The delivery customers, its<br />
employees and their insurer cross-claimed against WHD’s client pursuant<br />
to Wis. Stat. § 194.41(1) and the loaned employee doctrine. Wis. Stat. §<br />
194.41(1) extends an obligation for certain motor carriers to have insurance<br />
coverage for loading and unloading operations and to third parties involved in<br />
the process of loading/unloading. Under Wis. Stat. § 194.41(1), WHD’s client<br />
could have been held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries, notwithstanding worker’s<br />
compensation exclusivity, because it was allegedly engaged in loading/<br />
unloading operations at the time of the accident. To complicate the case,<br />
WHD’s client originally failed to timely answer.<br />
Ultimately, WHD obtained relief from the default, and prevailed on summary<br />
judgment by arguing that the transportation company fell within a narrow<br />
exception to Wis. Stat. § 194.41(1), getting the cross-claim dismissed. In<br />
particular, WHD established that its client was not liable because the requirements<br />
of Wis. Stat. § 194.41(1) did not apply to “a motor carrier that is registered<br />
by another state under a single-state or unified carrier registration system<br />
consistent with the standards established by the federal administrative code.”<br />
Additionally, WHD obtained an award of taxable costs and recovered the worker’s<br />
compensation lien in full. There is a cushion for any future medical expenses.<br />
schmidt<br />
laffey<br />
Litigation Type: Personal injury defense<br />
Court: Outagamie County Circuit Court<br />
Lead WHD Counsel: Pamela Schmidt and Jack Laffey<br />
Principal WHD Team Members: Pamela Schmidt, Jack Laffey<br />
Practice Areas Involved: Transportation Litigation & Compliance,<br />
Worker’s Compensation<br />
34 LITIGATION RESULTS
WHD Obtains Defense Verdict<br />
jones<br />
posnanski<br />
In Michael Kingsley v. Stan Hendrickson et al., WHD successfully represented<br />
the current Administrator of the Monroe County Jail, and a Monroe County<br />
Sheriff’s Deputy at a trial in a federal civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District<br />
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The plaintiff initially brought<br />
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged denial of due process and<br />
use of excessive force against several Monroe County Sheriff’s Department<br />
employees arising out of the use of a Taser on the plaintiff when he was<br />
incarcerated in the Monroe County Jail.<br />
After the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the due<br />
process claims and dismissed a number of the defendants, the court<br />
appointed three attorneys at a national law firm to represent the plaintiff<br />
through trial on his remaining excessive force claims. After a three-day trial<br />
before Judge Barbara Crabb, an eight-person jury returned a unanimous<br />
verdict in favor of the remaining defendants.<br />
Litigation Type: Civil rights litigation<br />
Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin<br />
Lead WHD Counsel: Andrew Jones and Timothy Posnanski<br />
Principal WHD Team Members: Andrew Jones, Timothy Posnanski,<br />
Peter Sewell (paralegal)<br />
Practice Areas Involved: Municipal Law & Civil Rights<br />
LITIGATION RESULTS 37
WHD Dismisses Counterclaims<br />
Then Prevails at Trial<br />
In Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Calvin C. Calkins, et al., WHD represented<br />
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC in a consumer foreclosure case. The borrower<br />
initially asserted eight separate counterclaims, all of which were dismissed on<br />
motions before trial. At trial, the borrower refused to verify his signature on the<br />
loan documents and maintained that the promissory note held by Nationstar<br />
Mortgage was a photocopy. At trial, the borrower insisted he could not verify<br />
his own signature and ultimately claimed that the endorsements on the<br />
promissory note were fraudulent.<br />
In a bench trial before Judge Richard Niess in Dane County Circuit Court,<br />
WHD prevailed after offering the testimony of an expert forensic document<br />
examiner, who opined that the signature on the note was an original and<br />
the endorsements on the allonge to the promissory note were also original.<br />
The court granted judgment in favor of Nationstar Mortgage, holding that<br />
Nationstar Mortgage clearly held the original note, was entitled to enforce the<br />
note, and to foreclose upon the property.<br />
posnanski<br />
NOWAKOWSKI<br />
Litigation Type: Real estate, consumer financial services litigation,<br />
lender liability<br />
Court: Dane County Circuit Court<br />
Lead WHD Counsel: Timothy Posnanski and Kenneth Nowakowski<br />
Principal WHD Team Members: Timothy Posnanski, Kenneth<br />
Nowakowski, Edward Heiser, Peter Sewell (paralegal), Debra Prim (paralegal)<br />
Practice Areas Involved: Litigation, Consumer Financial Services<br />
38 LITIGATION RESULTS
WHD Successfully Obtains and<br />
Defends Grant of Summary<br />
Judgment on Grounds That<br />
Plaintiff Offers No Credible<br />
Exposure Evidence<br />
laffey<br />
WHD convinced the appellate court to uphold the dismissal of its client, a<br />
pass-through supplier of asbestos-containing pipe insulation, on summary<br />
judgment. The plaintiff alleged that her deceased husband, a carpenter, was<br />
exposed to asbestos-containing products while performing construction<br />
work at more than 50 job sites in Milwaukee. WHD successfully argued that<br />
the plaintiff’s evidence that the decedent was exposed to any asbestoscontaining<br />
products supplied by its client was speculative, and the trial court<br />
granted summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed. The appellate court<br />
affirmed the grant of summary judgment, agreeing with WHD that the plaintiff<br />
had no credible exposure evidence.<br />
Litigation Type: Toxic tort litigation, product liability litigation<br />
Court: Milwaukee County Circuit Court, District I Court of Appeals<br />
Lead WHD Counsel: Jack Laffey<br />
Principal WHD Team Members: Jack Laffey, Sarah Thomas Pagels,<br />
Kristina Lemanski, Tammy Klein (paralegal)<br />
Practice Areas Involved: Toxic Tort Litigation & Consultation<br />
LITIGATION RESULTS 41
HONORS &<br />
ACCOLADES<br />
42 LITIGATION RESULTS
Ross A. Anderson was named the Best Lawyers’ 2013 Milwaukee Litigation –<br />
Real Estate “Lawyer of the Year.” Only a single lawyer in each designated area of<br />
practice in each community is honored as “Lawyer of the Year.”<br />
Additionally, the following WHD litigators were selected by their peers for inclusion<br />
in The Best Lawyers in America ® for 2013:<br />
• Ross A. Anderson, Commercial Litigation; Litigation–Real Estate;<br />
Litigation–Securities<br />
• Charles H. Bohl, Civil Rights Law<br />
• Cynthia L. Buchko, Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law;<br />
Land Use & Zoning Law<br />
• Gina Carter, Litigation–Patent<br />
• Robert E. Dallman, Litigation & Controversy–Tax<br />
• Donald A. Daugherty, Commercial Litigation<br />
• Daryl L. Diesing, Litigation–Bankruptcy<br />
• Thomas P. Godar, Litigation–Labor & Employment<br />
• Philip J. Halley, Litigation–Trusts & Estates<br />
• David C. Hertel, Litigation–Labor & Employment<br />
• Patrick B. Howell, Litigation–Bankruptcy<br />
• Jerard J. Jensen, Litigation–Banking & Finance<br />
• Andrew A. Jones, Commercial Litigation; Litigation–Labor & Employment<br />
• Myron L. Joseph, Litigation & Controversy–Tax<br />
• Daniel J. La Fave, Product Liability Litigation–Defendants<br />
• Richard J. Lewandowski, Litigation–Environmental<br />
• Jeffrey J. Liotta, Commercial Litigation; Litigation–Real Estate<br />
• Francis H. LoCoco, Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions–Defendants;<br />
Personal Injury Litigation–Defendants<br />
• Ann M. Maher, Commercial Litigation; Litigation–Real Estate<br />
• Daniel J. Miske, Commercial Litigation; Litigation–Real Estate<br />
• Kenneth R. Nowakowski, Commercial Litigation; Litigation–Banking &<br />
Finance; Litigation–Patent<br />
• Tamara Hayes O’Brien, Commercial Litigation<br />
• Douglas A. Pessefall, Litigation & Controversy–Tax<br />
• Joseph A. Pickart, Litigation & Controversy–Tax<br />
• Thomas M. Pyper, Commercial Litigation; Litigation–Construction; Litigation–<br />
Environmental; Litigation–Regulatory Enforcement (SEC, Telecom, Energy)<br />
• Jay R. Starrett, Commercial Litigation<br />
LITIGATION RESULTS 43
The following WHD litigators were named 2012 Wisconsin Super Lawyers by Thomson<br />
Reuters. Only 5% of the lawyers in the state are recognized as Super Lawyers:<br />
• Ross A. Anderson, Business Litigation<br />
• Donald A. Daugherty, Business Litigation<br />
• Daniel J. La Fave, Personal Injury Defense: Products<br />
• Jack Laffey, Personal Injury Defense: Products<br />
• Lisa M. Lawless, Business Litigation<br />
• Jeffrey J. Liotta, Business Litigation<br />
• Richard J. Lewandowski, Environmental Litigation<br />
• Francis H. LoCoco, Personal Injury Defense: Products<br />
• Ann M. Maher, Business Litigation<br />
• Thomas M. Pyper, Business Litigation<br />
Wisconsin Super Lawyers ® also named WHD as the Top Large Law Firm for<br />
Litigation in Wisconsin for 2011.<br />
The following WHD litigators were named 2012 Rising Stars by Thomson Reuters.<br />
This honor recognizes the top up-and-coming attorneys in the state–those who are<br />
40 years or younger, or who have been practicing for 10 years or less. No more than<br />
2.5% of lawyers in the state are named to this list:<br />
• Cynthia L. Buchko, Business Litigation<br />
• Melissa Caulum Williams, Business Litigation<br />
• Thomas Gonzalez, Personal Injury Defense: General<br />
• John W. Halpin, Civil Litigation Defense<br />
• Patrick M. Harvey, Business Litigation<br />
• Timothy H. Posnanski, Business Litigation<br />
• Sarah E. Thomas Pagels, Personal Injury Defense: Products<br />
44 LITIGATION RESULTS
The following litigation practice areas were included in the metropolitan and national<br />
rankings on the U.S. News–Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” list for 2013:<br />
• Civil Rights Law<br />
• Commercial Litigation<br />
• Litigation–Bankruptcy<br />
• Litigation–Construction<br />
• Litigation–Environmental<br />
• Litigation–Labor & Employment<br />
• Litigation–Patent<br />
• Litigation–Real Estate<br />
• Litigation–Regulatory Enforcement (SEC, Telecom, Energy)<br />
• Litigation–Tax<br />
• Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions–Defendants<br />
• Personal Injury Litigation–Defendants<br />
• Product Liability Litigation–Defendants<br />
LITIGATION RESULTS 45
WHD’s litigation practice (intellectual property and general commercial) was ranked<br />
among the best in Wisconsin by Chambers and Partners.<br />
• Chambers recognizes WHD’s Litigation practice for its litigators’ trial<br />
experience at state and federal courts, as well as for their being “well versed<br />
in a wide variety of contentious matters, including employment, product<br />
liability, IP and real estate disputes.” Ann Maher is a business litigation<br />
specialist who concentrates on antitrust, dealership and distribution disputes.<br />
• Chambers praises WHD’s Intellectual Property practice for the group’s<br />
responsiveness and vast patent litigation capabilities. Gina Carter is noted for<br />
the manner in which she “lends creativity to her approach to matters.”<br />
IN THE LAW<br />
Wisconsin Law Journal selected Thomas M. Pyper as a 2013 recipient of its Leaders<br />
in the Law Award, which recognizes lawyers and judges who have demonstrated<br />
their outstanding leadership, vision and legal expertise in Wisconsin’s law community.<br />
Wisconsin Law Journal named Sarah Thomas Pagels and Barbara J. Zabawa 2011<br />
Up and Coming Lawyers, which recognizes lawyers who have been practicing<br />
eight years or less, have successfully achieved legal outcomes early in their career,<br />
have significantly contributed to their communities, and have demonstrated<br />
exceptional leadership.<br />
Benchmark Litigation<br />
Benchmark Litigation named Gina Carter to its Top 250 Women in Litigation list. Top<br />
250 Women in Litigation is the first magazine devoted to honoring the achievements<br />
and issues facing female trial lawyers in the United States. The female litigators were<br />
selected on the basis of peer reviews conducted for the 2012 edition of Benchmark<br />
Litigation, the parent publication of Top 250 Women in Litigation. Female local litigation<br />
stars from each of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia are listed in this guide.<br />
46 LITIGATION RESULTS
M Magazine listed Rebecca Grassl Bradley as one of Milwaukee’s Highest-Ranked<br />
Internet and Litigation attorneys for 2012.<br />
WHD is recognized by Apple Inc. as a 2013 Go-To Law Firm for Intellectual<br />
Property Litigation, according to ALM, an integrated media company. WHD is<br />
one of an elite group of firms that delivers exceptional work for the in-house legal<br />
departments at the Fortune 500.<br />
Governor’s judicial selection<br />
advisory committee<br />
Donald A. Daugherty was appointed to the Governor’s Judicial Selection Advisory<br />
Committee, which helps to guide the governor’s judicial selection process and<br />
ensure that judges of the highest caliber who share a commitment to the rule of<br />
law are selected to serve Wisconsin.<br />
MILWAUKEE BAR ASSOCIATION<br />
judicial selection advisory<br />
committee<br />
Karen L. Tidwall was elected to the Milwaukee Bar Association Judicial Selection<br />
Advisory Committee.<br />
LITIGATION RESULTS 47
LITIGATION<br />
ATTORNEYS &<br />
PARALEGALS<br />
48 LITIGATION RESULTS
PRACTICE GROUP LEADERS<br />
Ross A. Anderson Cynthia L. Buchko Francis H. LoCoco<br />
LITIGATION RESULTS 49
ATTORNEYS<br />
Gabrielle Baumann Adams<br />
Rebecca Grassl Bradley<br />
Robert E. Dallman<br />
Thomas J. Arenz<br />
Gina Carter<br />
Donald A. Daugherty<br />
Bruce G. Arnold<br />
Melissa Caulum Williams<br />
Daryl L. Diesing<br />
Charles H. Bohl<br />
Paul D. Cranley<br />
Benjamin W. Dyer<br />
50 LITIGATION RESULTS
Thomas C. Ewing<br />
James W. Greer<br />
Patrick M. Harvey<br />
Melinda S. Giftos<br />
Frank A. Gumina<br />
Edward J. Heiser<br />
Thomas P. Godar<br />
Philip J. Halley<br />
Thomas P. Heneghan<br />
Thomas Gonzalez<br />
John W. Halpin<br />
David C. Hertel<br />
LITIGATION RESULTS 51
Patrick B. Howell<br />
Erin M. Keesecker<br />
Lisa M. Lawless<br />
Jerard J. Jensen<br />
Daniel J. La Fave<br />
Kristina C. Lemanski<br />
Andrew A. Jones<br />
Jack Laffey<br />
Richard J. Lewandowski<br />
Myron L. Joseph<br />
Michael J. Lauer<br />
Jeffrey J. Liotta<br />
52 LITIGATION RESULTS
Ann M. Maher<br />
Kenneth R. Nowakowski<br />
Gary R. Plotecher<br />
Jeffrey A. McIntyre<br />
Tamara Hayes O’Brien<br />
Timothy H. Posnanski<br />
Eric J. Meier<br />
Douglas A. Pessefall<br />
Benjamin W. Proctor<br />
Daniel J. Miske<br />
Joseph A. Pickart<br />
Thomas M. Pyper<br />
LITIGATION RESULTS 53
Pamela M. Schmidt<br />
Karen L. Tidwall<br />
Steven F. Stanaszak<br />
John B. Tuffnell<br />
Jay R. Starrett<br />
Barbara J. Zabawa<br />
Sarah E. Thomas Pagels<br />
54 LITIGATION RESULTS
PARALEGALS<br />
Cecelia M. Campbell<br />
Cheryl A. Louis<br />
Peter F. Sewell<br />
Lynn M. Gompper<br />
Pamela J. Price<br />
Cindi M. Wittlinger<br />
Rachel J. Halverson<br />
Debra J. Prim<br />
Tammy L. Klein<br />
Lisa M. Rave<br />
LITIGATION RESULTS 55
MILWAUKEE OFFICE<br />
555 East Wells Street, Suite 1900<br />
Milwaukee, WI 53202-3819<br />
414.273.2100<br />
MADISON OFFICE<br />
33 East Main Street, Suite 300<br />
P.O. Box 1379<br />
Madison, WI 53701-1379<br />
608.255.4440<br />
www.whdlaw.com<br />
© 2012 <strong>Whyte</strong> <strong>Hirschboeck</strong> <strong>Dudek</strong> S.C. All rights reserved.