Skip to main content
James S. Harkness

James Harkness’s Legal Cases

10 total

  • Nielson v. Dickerson, 307 F.3d 623 (7th Cir., Oct. 9, 2002)

    Practice Area:
    Class Action
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2002
    Outcome:
    Summary judgment obtained in favor of clients.
    Description:
    Class action.
  • Nielson v. Dickerson Nos. 00-2780, 00-2781, 2002 WL 31255777 (7th Cir. Oct. 9, 2002)

    Practice Area:
    Class Action
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2002
    Outcome:
    Summary judgment upheld on appeal in favor of clients
    Description:
    Class action
  • In re Jackson, 1999 WL 703093 (Bankr. N.D.Ill., 1999)

    Practice Area:
    Commercial
    Date:
    Jan 01, 1999
    Outcome:
    Judgment for client.
    Description:
    Obtained favorable order for client in bankruptcy court against Sears' denying Sears' right to file a counterclaim in a seperate civil lawsuit pending in the District Court, and brought against Sears by client to recover an unpaid claim.
  • Pikes v. Riddle, 38 F.Supp.2d 639 (N.D.Ill. 1998)

    Practice Area:
    Class Action
    Date:
    Jan 01, 1998
    Outcome:
    Judgment for client.
    Description:
    Class action against defendants.
  • Miller v. Wexler & Wexler, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1382 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 5, 98)

    Practice Area:
    Class Action
    Date:
    Jan 01, 1998
    Outcome:
    Obtain ruling in favor of clients, listing cases certifying classes with between 17 and 40 members and emphasizing that there is no “magical number at which the numerosity requirement is satisfied”.
    Description:
    Class action.
  • Cemail v. Viking Dodge, Inc.; 982 F.Supp. 1296 (N.D.Ill. Oct 28. 97)

    Practice Area:
    Class Action
    Date:
    Jan 01, 1997
    Outcome:
    Motion to dismiss denied in favor of clients.
    Description:
    Class action sucessfully obtaining right to prusue claims against dealer's assignees under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA), and the Illinois Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (MVRISA). On motion to dismiss for failure to state claim, the District Court, Moran, Senior District Judge, held that: (1) section of the TILA governing liability of contract assignees, providing that consumers may maintain cause of action against assignee of creditor if TILA violation is apparent on face of disclosure statement, limited car buyers' rights under claims preservation clauses; (2) allegations in car buyers' complaint, that warranty disclosure statement in automobile sales contract falsely suggested the entire $780 fee that was charged for extended warranty coverage was paid to warranty provider, were sufficient to state TILA claim against assignee.
  • Hobson v. Lincoln Insurance Agency, Inc., 2000 WL 1279334 (N.D.Ill. 2000)

    Practice Area:
    Class Action
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2000
    Outcome:
    Client permitted to pursue claims, and defendants' motions to dimiss denied.
    Description:
    Class action for violations of the Truth in Lending Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, after agency and agent procured several policies for clients including an auto liability policy issued by an insurance, a comprehensive auto policy issued by another insurance, and a bail bond card and travel service issued by a travel club. The insurance company also allegedly arranged for Hobson to finance her policies through a premium finance contract. After the car at issue was stolen the insurer refused to pay and demanded premiums for the balance of policy.
  • Maytag Corporation, LLC v. Freedom Plastics, LLC

    Practice Area:
    Commercial
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2003
    Outcome:
    $900,000.00 judgment at trial, on counterclaim, with dismissal of all claims against venture capital client in federal court.
    Description:
    A controversy arose between the client, Freedom Plastics, and Maytag Corporation (“Maytag”) under an agreement for Freedom to supply Maytag with plastic parts. Under this agreement, Freedom would use molds, raw materials and other tools, to create the plastic parts. Maytag would then purchase the plastic parts. Ultimately, Maytag sought and end to the business relationship with Freedom and sought possession of the molds used to create the plastic parts. In order to protect its interests, and in response to a lawsuit against it for injunction and replevin, Freedom asserted a statutory lien over the molds, its inventory of finished product, and the raw materials used to create the plastic parts.
  • Wisconsin Federal Court Manufacturer's Dispute With Alleged "Distributor

    Practice Area:
    Commercial
    Outcome:
    Pending
    Description:
    As lead counsel in a federal court dispute between a manufacturer and an alleged distributor, after being informed of an alleged contract and an alleged distributor’s intent to seek an injunction for cessation of competition in launch of custom hydraulics part and distribution, filed motion for temporary restraining order and complaint for declaration that defendant was not a dealer or distributor, and had no contract with client. At hearing on the temporary restraining order prior to a national convention where the custom part would be displayed, the temporary restraining order was denied but defendant confirmed that it would not interfere with the sale or marketing of the product. Defendant also asserted counterclaims and third party claims alleging that it had a contract to be an exclusive distributor of the part. Initially, a complete dismissal of all counterclaims and third-party claims asserted in custom designed hydraulics parts distribution dispute was obtained, with leave for defendant to re-plead. After defendant then asserted new claims, a declaratory finding was made that defendant was not a distributor or dealer under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, which by that time became uncontested by defendant. Dismissal of alleged anticipatory repudiation of an alleged exclusive contract or distributorship agreement was obtained with prejudice. Ultimately, the matter was resolved and the custom manufacturing agreement for the end user remained intact.
  • Artisan Design Build v. Bilstrom, 397 Ill.App.3d 317, 922 N.E.2d 361 (2nd Dist., 2009)

    Practice Area:
    Commercial
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2009
    Outcome:
    Pending in trial court.
    Description:
    As lead counsel obtained dismissal of all claims against clients, petition for leave to appeal accepted to Second District Appellate Court of Illinois where oral argument was taken, and then to the Illinois Supreme Court where the Act was ultimately rejected by the Court. Case involves claims by contractor against homeowners in trial court under, then, newly created Illinois Home Repair and Remodeling Act, including order striking contractor demand for arbitration, and prosecuted through appeal to Second District and Illinois Supreme Court.