Source: https://secure.heylroyster.com/index.cfm?pageID=144
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:44:51+00:00

Document:
D.R. v. Individual Realtor and Realty Company (2017) - Obtained defense verdict for real estate agent in a jury trial in which plaintiff claimed damages related to representations made in the course of the purchase of a home. One year after purchasing the home, the plaintiff experienced a septic tank failure that resulted in damage to his basement. The plaintiff claimed that he was unaware that the home was serviced by a septic tank and that the agent misrepresented that the home was connected to city sewer. The court granted summary judgment prior to trial on the plaintiff’s claims of fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, and professional malpractice. The judge granted the firm’s motion to strike a negligence per secount at trial. Following trial, the jury entered a defense verdict as to the fraudulent misrepresentation count, and the judge entered judgment in favor of the defendants as to counts relating to the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and breach of fiduciary duty claims.
Young v. ___ (C.D. Ill 2017) - Represented seven clinical therapists in an inadequate mental health treatment claim. The court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion and agreed that the plaintiff could not support his claim by demonstrating that any of the individual defendants failed to provide him sufficient mental health treatment. The defendants provided evidence, including the plaintiff’s clinical progress notes which established the plaintiff’s engagement in the treatment process, to defeat the plaintiff’s claim.
Adams v. ___ (C.D. Ill 2017) - Successfully defended grievance examiner of a state facility in two religious claims: the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act claim and a First Amendment claim for the freedom of religion. The Central District granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion and agreed the policies at the facility did not have any effect on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. Furthermore, the facility’s failure to initiate a specific non-denominational Christian church service for these plaintiffs was not a violation of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment right because there are currently several Christian church services for the plaintiffs to attend.
Hughes v. ___ (C.D. Ill 2017) - Defended grievance examiner in a claim relating to the quality of food at a state facility. The court agreed that the grievance examiner had no control over the food service. Additionally, the grievance examiner properly addressed the plaintiff’s concerns outlined in his grievances and attempts to resolve. The court granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion.
Poole v. ___ (2015) - Successfully argued summary judgment motion in state court as it related to Plaintiff’s cause of action for deliberate indifference for failing to protect him from another inmate as well as deliberate indifference to his medical needs against jail personnel. The court agreed that there was no evidence that the plaintiff’s attacker was a specific risk of harm to the plaintiff and that the defendants were not personally involved in administering plaintiff’s medication or medical treatment.
Strickland v. ___ (C.D. Ill 2016) - Defended jail personnel in a claim for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs due to a back brace that was allegedly confiscated during his incarceration. The Central District granted defendants’ summary judgment motion based on the fact that the defendants lacked personal involvement as it related to any alleged confiscation of a back brace as well as any personal involvement in his medical care or treatment.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.