Here:
Lower court materials here.

Here are the materials in Waukegan Potawatomi Casino LLC v. City of Waukegan (N.D. Ill.):

Here is the opinion in Harris v. First Management Services LLC (N.D. Ill.):
Briefs when PACER stops being a punk:
19 Motion to Dismiss-Compel Arbitration

Here are the materials in Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma v. Scientific Games Corporation (N.D. Ill.):
49 Motion to Compel Arbitration

Here are the materials in Dinger v. Wishenko (N.D. Ill.):
58 Insurance Co. Motion for Summary Judgment
70-2 Order re Partial Settlement of Claim
74 Wishenko Motion for Summary Judgment
91 Wishenko Reply in Support of 74
Materials in the related Federal Tort Claims Act case, Dinger v. United States (D. Kan.):
Here is the complaint in Consumer Financial Protection Board v. Golden Valley Lending (N.D. Ill.):
Here are the materials in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Golden Valley Lending (N.D. Ill.):
Here are the materials in Native American Arts v. Peter Stone Co. (N.D. Ill.):
An excerpt:
In that briefing, the defendant’s primary position was that the plaintiff was collaterally estopped from establishing standing. Its secondary position was that plaintiff did not qualify as an Indian arts and crafts organization under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (“IACA”), 25 U.S.C. § 305 IACA. Both arguments were rejected as non-starters. Native Am. Arts, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74187, 2015 WL 3561439, at *5-7. An intemperate opponent might have called them frivolous, but the mere fact that a position is a loser does not make it frivolous.
Another:
As for this time, however, it’s worth noting that the defendant was unable to mount a challenge to plaintiff’s standing until six years into this litigation; that tends to further undermine defendant’s position that this was an obvious flaw in the plaintiff’s suit and one that plaintiff should have readily conceded and should have dropped its suit early on. Indeed, if it were such a frivolous suit it would seem that defendant could have put together a successful motion for summary judgment based on the standing issue some time ago, thereby avoiding many of the costs and expenses of which it now complains.
Here are the materials and order in the matter of MCZ Development Corp. et. al. v. Dickinson Wright PLLC et. al.:
Doc. 37- Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Doc. 38- Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Doc. 39- Reply in Further Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Doc. 42- Memorandum Opinion and Order
Complaint and news coverage previously posted here.
Kialegee Casino Developers sued Dickinson Wright PLLC in Illinois District Court for malpractice in 2013. In 2012, The Northern District of Oklahoma issued a preliminary injunction against Plaintiffs to stop a casino being placed 70 miles from the Tribe’s headquarters and the National Indian Gaming Commission issued a letter stating the Tribe didn’t have jurisdiction on the property. The Plaintiffs alleged the law firm misrepresented potential opposition to their casino.
The Illinois court ruled the NIGC claim was premature since its letter didn’t represent a final agency decision and also dismissed the complaint with prejudice because Plaintiffs prevailed when the 10th Circuit reversed the injunction and ordered Oklahoma’s case dismissed.
Here are the materials in Pearson v. United Debt Holdings (N.D. Ill.):
You must be logged in to post a comment.