Case Successes - May

Querrey & Harrow Recovers Millions More for Illinois Taxpayers! 

Querrey & Harrow shareholders Dan Gallagher, Terrence Guolee and Larry Kowalczyk won another great victory for Illinois taxpayers by once-again assisting Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias' efforts in claims made against the prior owners of the President Abraham Lincoln Hotel and Conference Center in Springfield, Illinois, which once owed more than $29.5 million on its state-backed loan.

The saga began in 1982 when the State of Illinois gave a $15.5 million loan to the hotel, which was owned by 80 politically-connected investors. Since then, the hotel made only intermittent payments and, following nearly 20 years of unsuccessful efforts by prior law firms, Querrey & Harrow successfully foreclosed on the property in less than a year after being retained by Treasurer Giannoulias. (See, http://www.querrey.com/news-newsletterarticles-82.html for news on this result.)  

Since the foreclosure, Querrey & Harrow continued assisting Treasurer Giannoulias in claims against an insurer that issued a surety bond on the original mortgage for the hotel. This claim, once identified as not worth pursuing by prior counsel, has now been settled on the eve of a threatened lawsuit for payment by the carrier to Park National Bank, in its capacity as trustee of the Illinios Insured Mortgage Pilot Program (the Illinois government-funded program responsible for the mortgage) of another $5.65 Million Dollars. 

The settlement also retains ownership of the hotel with the State of Illinois.  The recovery on the surety bond will allow improvements to the hotel to be made which should allow Treasurer Giannoulias to recoup millions more for Illinois taxpayers upon the eventual sale of the property.

Querrey & Harrow salutes Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias on his continuing efforts to fight for Illinois taxpayers and is proud to serve as Treasurer Giannoulias' counsel on these claims. 

* * * 

Querrey & Harrow Defeats Unusual 13th Amendment Claim

Chicago office shareholders Brandon Lemley and Paul Rettberg defeated a rather unusual claim that a suburban municipality “enslaved” the plaintiff. The 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. The plaintiff alleged that an ordinance that required him to mow the parkway - the strip of grass located between the sidewalk and the street on his property – effectively was slavery. Plaintiff argued that the ordinance amounted to slavery or involuntary servitude because he was given no choice but to engage in manual labor to tend to the parkway that was actually the property of the municipality.

The Circuit Court of the 18th Judicial Circuit in DuPage County rejected Plaintiff’s arguments and dismissed the entire case (including claims for slander of title and equal protection) with prejudice. After all, the United States Supreme Court had previously found a Florida law requiring all able-bodied adults to perform 40 hours of road and bridge construction per year without pay did not violate the 13th Amendment. 

* * *  

Querrey & Harrow Wins Jail Employment Law Claim

Dan Gallagher, Terrence Guolee and Dominick Lanzito recently obtained an order from Federal District Court Judge Amy St. Eve granting all defendants summary judgment in all claims brought by a former guard at the Cook County Jail against the Cook County Sheriff’s office and other defendants alleging racial and sexual discrimination and violation of First Amendment free speech rights.

In the case, detainees in the women’s jail of the Cook County jail complex alleged that the plaintiff and several other male officers were having improper sexual relations with female detainees in the division.  Following an extensive investigation by the Cook County Sheriff’s Police Department and the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office, charges were brought by the Cook County State’s Attorney against three of the nearly dozen officers implicated by the detainees. 

Following the criminal trial, the guard was acquitted of the criminal charges by the court and filed suit alleging that his prosecution was motivated by retaliation against the plaintiff by a jail supervisor for his complaints of sexual harassment and in an effort to remove male officers from the female jail division.  Following extensive discovery, Querrey & Harrow documented that plaintiff’s sexual harassment claims were only brought after the detainee’s complaints surfaced and the plaintiff was de-deputized, that the investigation was properly run by the Sheriff’s Police and the State’s Attorney and that the named defendants were not to blame for the criminal prosecution.  Likewise, the court accepted defense arguments that, despite the acquittal, there was more than sufficient evidence to support the prosecution.

* * * 

Dead Man's Act Leads to Not Guilty Verdict

Attorney Patrick Wall successfully defended the Estate of a deceased motorist who had been sued for permanent and debilitating injuries which affected her daily living.  The plaintiff alleged at the time of the accident that the deceased motorist proceeded across a through street after stopping at a stop sign and negligently collided with the plaintiff.  The plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to yield the right-of-way and was not in control of his car while crossing the street.  Subsequent to the accident, the defendant died of unrelated causes.  The week long trial included testimony by a total of 6 witnesses and concluded with a verdict on January 16, 2009.   

The plaintiff alleged permanent residual migraine headaches and upper extremity radicular symptoms as well as soft tissue injuries.  The defendant successfully moved to exclude the plaintiff’s testimony regarding the facts of the accident using the Dead Man’s Act.  Further, Mr. Wall utilized the Dead Man’s Act and Illinois case law to bar the responding police officer’s opinion testimony as it related to the point of impact and all accident reconstruction.  This left the police officer only able to testify as to the defendant’s statements, which did not demonstrate negligence. 

The plaintiff was left with the officer’s visual observations at the scene of the accident, which was insufficient to show liability.  

The Plaintiff presented four treating physicians who testified to the Plaintiff's injuries.  Specifically, Mr. Wall contradicted 2 of the physicians testifying at trial with inconsistent testimony given at their depositions.  At the conclusion of trial, the plaintiff requested approximately $550,000, arguing that the Plaintiff suffered life-altering injuries.  The jury deliberated for less than an hour and returned a verdict of Not Guilty in favor of the deceased motorist thereby awarding no damages to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brought a post trial motion alleging the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.  On April 24th, 2009, Judge Elrod denied the Plaintiff's Motion.