Typically, a plaintiff chooses the most convenient place for their lawsuit and the Defendant, unless that location happens to be where they also wish, fight this choice.  Under the principle of "forum non conveniens", defendants are often successful in relocating the litigation to their home turf.  This is mainly based on the fact that the Defendant should receive whatever local benefit and efficiency because they are the ones on the hook.  In federal litigation, with diversity jurisdiction especially, early federal law sought to curb local favoritism.  In the same way, state jurisprudence has evolved to encompass a framework for evaluating where a lawsuit should be conducted.  Choice of forum is very different from choice of law, which is what law to apply. 

Here, in Taylor v. Lemans Corporation, the First Appellate District affirmed a Cook County Circuit Court decision denying Lemans' Motion to Transfer on grounds of forum non conveniens.  The facts are essential to determining the proper forum for a lawsuit.  Here, this litigation originated from a motocross accident which occurred in Bureau County, Illinois.  The plaintiff sued for product liability and chose cook county as his forum even though he did not live there.  Despite that, the Defendant's motion was denied because, as the Appellate Court reasoned, the Plaintiff's choice should be given some deference and Cook County is not inappropriately chosen despite its large caseload and distance from the accident.  Witness testimony can be obtained through depositions and computer and internet access have made the physical location of accidents less significant.

So, the intersection of technology and the law seems to shaping civil procedure and how Courts perceive the relative positions of the litigants and their ability to obtain, review, and process information. The ruling, and its supporting reasoning, indicates that Defendants need to be sharper with their forum non conveniens arguments and that they should make plans to litigate more cases in Cook County rather than collar counties (or rural western and downstate counties) because plaintiffs will undoubtedly seek to sue in Cook County because jury verdicts are viewed as more favorable to plaintiffs there than in other counties in Illinois.  

Contacting a business litigation attorney prior to litigation can help shape contracts or other materials to specify a particular favorable forum in advance of issues.  Further, once litigation is commenced, business litigation attorneys can help craft stronger, more developed arguments in favor of forum non conveniens to ensure that litigation plays out in more favorable fora to both minimize damages if there is to be an adverse ruling and to provide for better leverage in settlement negotiations after plaintiff's counsel is faced with many long commutes to litigate the case.

The MineolaAmerican reports that a local wholesale car dealership which does business with Carmax, a large consumer-oriented car reseller and purchaser, has sued the massive dealer for anti-trust violations stemming from their refusal to allow dealers to supply car history reports from any information company rather than Carmax's preferred vendor(s).

The Chicago Tribune reports that a local manufacturer is facing a total of at least $50,000 in OSHA fines for violations of employee safety standards.

OSHA, an arm of the Department of Labor, is entrusted with protecting employee safety and has recently come under fire for failing to protect workers against long term exposure to dangerous materials, chemicals, and manufacturing processes.

OSHA, however, is very well set up to inspect and fine companies for more routine, established risks such as fall safety, electrical hazards, and vision protection.

One local business, Phoenix Electric Mfg. Co., has discovered, the hard way, that OSHA is very good at inspecting heavy machinery to determine whether they might pose a risk to employees.  OSHA inspections are a big danger to businesses, but with the proper legal counsel, they can pose a greatly diminished threat.

The situation that Phoenix faces illustrates this point well.

Donald Trump, not one to shy away from the headlines, reportedly has dismissed his defamation lawsuit against comedian Bill Mahr.  Trump sued Mahr over his offer to donate $5 million to charity if Trump could prove that he was not the progeny of an orangutan.  Trump, clearly irate, sued Mahr for defamation, however, the lawsuit, if only based on those comments, would be frivolous and without legal foundation because that kind of comment is not defamatory for a number of reasons.  

The Chicago Tribune reports that Walgreen Co. has been sued by a California consumer for alleged labeling violations on their Vitamin E supplements.  The consumer objects to allegedly misleading claims on Walgreen's Vitamin E 400 IU Dietary Supplement that says the product "naturally contributes to cardiovascular health by helping to protect LDL cholesterol from oxidation which may cause cellular damage."

The complaint alleges that these statements are false and misleading based on clinical data that disproves these statements and indicates that the product is ineffective as marketed.

Lawsuits against supplement manufacturers are only just the beginning of the process.  This case illustrates why both consumers and manufacturers need to be very aware of the legal terrain in supplements and why consumers often mistake natural supplements for regulated drugs.

It is not uncommon for property owners in Chicago or its suburbs to own a condo or single family home and then, when they have the means, purchase a winter home where they flee during the winter.  While global warming has created some very mild winters in Chicago recently, this trend is not changing.

A recent Illinois tax decision should further incentivize property owners in Illinois to hold onto their Illinois properties and avoid Illinois taxation.

Product liability actions are premised on three major categories:
1. Failure to Warn
2. Defective Design
3. Manufacturing Defect

The Chicago Tribune reports that the parents of a toddler have filed suit against the manufacturer of their baby dresser for a product defect and for failure to warn about the dangers of their dresser when it tipped over and killed their 2 year old son.  Their case seems to allege both a failure to warn as well as defective design of the furniture.

Eminent domain is one of the harshest tools government can assert to curtail property rights.  Zoning regulates how a property owner may use their property, but eminent domain goes to their right to own the property itself.  Traditionally victorious, the government occasionally is overzealous in its application of the doctrine against property owners.  Recently, the Chicago Tribune wrote about a victory for property owners against a forfeiture action brought by the US government.  The case involves a family owned motel in Tewksbury, Massachusetts.

JC Penney, Macy's, and Martha Stewart are embroiled in a large commercial breach of contract case revolving around JC Penney's capture of Martha Stewart and her Martha Stewart collection housewares.  The Chicago Tribune explains that Martha Stewart signed a contract with Macy's which obligated her to create and market a line of products in Macy's.  Macy's got Stewart, who should be very used to court proceedings, to admit in depositions that the contract also was an exclusivity contract as well as a contract for her name, fame, expertise, and line of products.

This case illustrates precisely why depositions are critical to trial and provide a clear roadmap for trial strategy for both sides.

The ABA Journal is reporting about Virginia's discriminatory application of its FOIA laws where out of state residents are unable to use the law to obtain public records.  Apparently 2 separate cases have been brought, one in which a father lived in Virginia but subsequently moved and wanted paperwork related to this divorce, child custody, and child support payments.  The other is a real estate data aggregator that requested public real estate data and was denied because he was an out of state petitioner.