Drew Peterson's ex-attorney accused of misconduct in complaint to state agency – Chicago Tribune

Joel Brodsky, the former attorney for wife killer Drew Peterson who now is representing Chicago Officer Robert Rialmo in a high-profile police shooting case, is the subject of a complaint before a state regulatory agency over his work in three cases, including a routine lemon-law proceeding for which he already has been sanctioned by a federal judge.

The Aug. 21 complaint, filed by the administrator of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, requests a hearing to determine whether Brodsky should be disciplined for alleged unprofessional behavior that includes “false allegations and inappropriate diatribes.” The complaint accuses Brodsky of “using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden a third person.”

Brodsky’s behavior in one of the cases cited in the complaint resulted earlier this year in a $50,000 fine levied by U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall, who also ordered Brodsky to undergo anger management training. He planned to appeal the fine, which his attorney at the time said might have been the largest in Chicago federal court history payable to the District Court itself.

Brodsky referred a call requesting comment to his attorney, who could not immediately be reached.

An often controversial attorney, Brodsky represents Chicago police Officer Robert Rialmo, who faces possible firing for fatally shooting a bat-wielding teen and a bystander while on duty in December 2015.

The 22-page filing to the disciplinary commission details three cases involving reported misconduct and includes a number of excerpts from emails allegedly sent by Brodsky to rival attorneys. “How do you even call yourself a lawyer? You are an embarrassment to the profession,” reads a March 29, 2017, email from Brodsky, according to the filing.

In other emails, Brodsky allegedly described a parent in a co-parenting case as “very mentally sick” and in need of “serious help.” The complaint says he sent those emails to the couple involved, opposing counsel and “various personnel” in two school districts where the couple’s child might have attended school.

The ARDC’s disciplinary measures can include revocation of an attorney’s law license.

eolumhense@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @essayolumhense

MORE COVERAGE

Drew Peterson’s ex-attorney appealing $50,000 fine, anger management order »

Lawyer Joel Brodsky implied rival was gay, ‘learning disabled’ in letter »

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

Plaintiff in Lemon Law Case Who Won Car In Raffle Properly Awarded $5000—CA – Metropolitan News-Enterprise

Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

Wednesday,
August 22, 2018

 

Page 1

 

Plaintiff in Lemon Law Case Who Won Car In Raffle Properly
Awarded $5,000—C.A.

Amount Encompassed Upgrades, Taxes, Fees He Paid

 

By a MetNews
Staff Writer

 

The Court of
Appeal for this district held yesterday that a judge properly allowed a jury
verdict for $5,000 to stand in a case where the plaintiff contended his $52,000
automobile was a “lemon” because he did not testify as to payments made by him
in any greater sum than what was awarded.

Although
the jury was not told that plaintiff Joseph Poulose won the automobile in a
raffle, Poulose was unable to testify that he paid the ticket price of
$51,812.05 for the vehicle.

In
his action against  Ford Motor Company and Vista Ford in Woodland Hills,
Poulose argued that he should be allowed to return the automobile to the
dealership and get its value, in cash.

The
decision by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gregory Keosian not to disturb the
verdict was affirmed by Div. Five yesterday, in an opinion by a judge of that
same court, Dorothy C. Kim, sitting on assignment. Kim has been appointed as a
member of that panel, with the appointment awaiting confirmation.

She
wrote:

“The
jury verdict was not against the law. The verdict form provided to the jury
required that if the jury found a breach of the implied warranty, it should
calculate restitution. Restitution was defined for the jury as ‘the amount
paid’ by plaintiff. The amount paid would also include any charges for
transportation and manufacturer-installed options, and sales tax, use tax,
license fees, registration fees, and other official fees. There were no
instructions regarding cancellation or rescission of a sale contract.

“Plaintiff
asserts that the only remedy was restitution of the full amount of the invoice,
or $51,812.05. We disagree. Substantial evidence supports the jury award of
restitution. The jury could reasonably infer from plaintiff’s testimony that he
paid sales tax and registration and his silence regarding any other payments,
that plaintiff had only paid sales tax and registration. This would make the
conclusion that the amount paid was $5,000 consistent with [the]… instruction
on restitution.”

The
case is
Poulose
v. Ford Motor Co
., B281693.

Representing
Poulose were Hallen D. Rosner, Shay Dinata-Hanson and Arlyn L. Escalante of the
San Diego firm of Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, and Lawrence J. Hutchens of
downtown Los Angeles’s Hutchens & Hutchens. Ford’s lawyers were  M. Kevin
Underhill and Amir M. Nassihi of the San Francisco office of Shook Hardy &
Bacon.

 

Copyright
2018, Metropolitan News Company

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

Consumer Protection – Lemon Law – Wisconsin Law Journal (blog)

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Mercedes-Benz), appeals an order denying its motions after verdict and granting judgment and costs to Michelle Hinkley in this lemon law action.

Enter your user name and password in the fields above to gain access to the subscriber content on this site.

Your subscription includes one set of login credentials for your exclusive use. Security features have been integrated on this site: If someone signs in with your credentials while you are logged in, the site will automatically close your ongoing login and you will lose access at that time. To inquire about group subscriptions for your organization, contact Disa Ehrler

If you feel your login credentials are being used by a second party, contact customer service at 877-615-9536 for assistance in changing your password.

Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? For instructions on how to get premium web access, click here.

Forgot your password?

Share this:

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

Will South Korea's lemon law work? – The Korea Herald

In light of the recent BMW incident in which vehicles caught fire presumably over a malfunctioning component, Korea’s auto industry is paying close attention to the amended automobile management act, also referred to as the Korean version of the US lemon law, slated to take effect next January.

The law is being met with mixed reactions. Some critics view it as insufficient and say it should be complemented with stronger legal bounds, while others welcome it as the first step to strengthening consumer rights.

(Yonhap)

The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on Tuesday introduced the new enforcement ordinances for the automobile management act that was revised last year, under which vehicles that experience two “major” defects or three “general” defects within the first year of purchase can receive a refund or exchange.

A deliberative committee consisting of less than 50 professionals under the Korea Transport Safety Authority would decide whether the vehicle is eligible for refund or exchange, and its decision would have the same legal effect as court rulings.

Under the new rules, major defects would be problems found in the following: motor, driveline, steering system, brakes, traveling mechanism, fuel system, electric apparatus and the car body, among others.

In case of a refund, the distance traveled will be marked off the car price, and carmakers will have to pay back the amount owners paid for the acquisition tax and number plate.

The new rule also places the responsibility of defining fault within the vehicle with the manufacturer, stating that errors found within six months of the car having been delivered are presumed to have existed from the moment it was delivered.

The law is benchmarked on the US lemon law, or the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act that was enacted in 1975 to protect consumer rights in seeking reimbursement for consumer goods that continually fail to meet quality standards.

“Given that it had been difficult for drivers to receive compensation for faulty vehicles, Korea’s lemon law is the first step to improving consumers’ rights,” said Ha Sung-yong, a professor of the department of mechanical and automotive engineering at Shinhan Univeristy.

Given that most cars are driven on average about 150,000 kilometers, the distance driven will be converted into monetary worth and subtracted from the purchasing price of the new vehicle.

For example, 3 million won will be marked off a 30 million won car with a driving distance of 15,000 kilometers, as 10 percent of the car has been used.

Drivers are eligible for a refund if their cars, finalized for exchange, are no longer produced. It is also mandatory for carmakers to include refund and exchange policies in the contract.

But the Korean version, according to critics, has stricter and more complicated requirements for a refund and true compensation is only viable through punitive measures.

“Long story short, South Korea needs to adopt punitive damages, class action, and discovery systems. The purposed lemon law isn’t effective enough to protect and compensate consumers in cases like the recent BMW engine fires and 2016 Volkswagen emissions scandal,” said Park Sang-in, a professor at the graduate school of Seoul National University.

“If we think about it, faulty parts found within three years of buying a new car are mostly covered by the warranty program.”

Yoon Ceol-han, director of the citizens’ rights center and action for consumer justice at leading local civic group Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice, pointed out that the rule that requires at least two incidents of defects involving critical devices that are directly linked to drivers’ safety, such as the steering wheel or brakes, was not realistic.

The new ordinances will be finalized after discussion among related ministries and the review of the Ministry of Government Legislation, to be officially implemented as of Jan. 1 next year.

The rules are not applicable to vehicles operated for commercial use, such as buses, taxis or rental cars.

“The ministry is putting together details on guidelines for the deliberative committee along with requirements for reimbursements,” said Jung Song-yi, deputy director of the ministry’s motor vehicles policy division.

Jung added that it would be difficult for related parties to refuse settlement by the deliberative committee, as it would have the same legal effect as court rulings.

By Kim Bo-gyung 
(lisakim425@heraldcorp.com)

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

Customer accuses Nissan of violating Lemon Law – West Virginia Record

WHEELING — An Ohio customer is suing Nissan, alleging breach of warranties.

Harry Wright of Martins Ferry, Ohio, filed a complaint in Ohio Circuit Court against Nissan North America Inc., alleging violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, on Oct. 19, 2017, Wright purchased a 2017 Nissan Frontier from Nissan North America seller for $31,916. Shortly after taking possession of the Frontier, the suit says, Wright he experienced serious nonconformities with the vehicle. These nonconformities substantially impaired the Nissan’s use, value and safety and the vehicle remains in defective condition, the lawsuit states. 

The plaintiff alleges Nissan North America failed to make repairs in a good and workmanlike manner to conform the vehicle to its warranties.

Wright seeks trial by jury, diminution in value of the vehicle, costs of repairs, incidental and consequential damages, replacement with a new vehicle, attorney fees, court costs and all other just and appropriate relief. He is represented by attorney Michael S. Bailey of Bailey Legal Services PLLC in Barboursville.

Ohio Circuit Court case number 18-C-132

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

After his brand-new camper ends up in the shop twice, RV owner calls ABC 6 On Your Side – ABC6OnYourSide.com

A man says he bought a brand new camper to relax with his family and help relieve stress but is instead already frustrated with his $40,000 purchase.

Randy Riffle says he bought the 2018 XLR Nitro Toy Hauler camper from Specialty RV in Lancaster in April. In those few months, he says it’s already been in the shop twice, so he called ABC 6 On Your Side for help.

“A brand new unit and it’s been nothing but trouble,” said Riffle.

Within weeks of buying it, Riffle took a road trip to Kentucky. He says that’s when trouble started with the camper’s fresh water tank.

“We heard cracking and popping when we were filling it up,” said Riffle.

Riffle says he called Specialty RV about those noises to make sure he was doing everything correctly.

“They’re like yeah, it’ll blow out water if it gets too full,” said Riffle.

But Riffle says the tank broke loose.

“It landed on top of the axle which is one of the big safety concerns,” said Riffle.

He brought the camper to Specialty RV. Riffle sent pictures to ABC 6 On Your Side that he snapped of the repairs. He says the tank ended up being mounted several inches below the frame where it should have been. The Specialty RV invoice shows the cause of the tank falling out was due to a bracket being installed backwards.

Riffle says it took nearly a month to get his camper fixed.

“Then they come back and said afterwards once they tore apart and fixed it that we had overfilled the tank, caused it to buckle and drop, which makes no sense because it should overflow when it’s full,” said Riffle.

He took it back out on the road. After that trip, Riffle says he had to return the camper to the shop a second time.

“The hot water tank had melted the plastic inserts for the fresh water, the city water, and the black water hook up. It melted them off the side of the unit,” said Riffle.

In an email to ABC 6 On Your Side, XLR’s Warranty Parts and Service manager stated they sent a replacement for the hot water heater door so it directs heat away from the water hook-ups. The warranty manager also told us the only way the water tank could fall is if it had been overfilled which can bend the brackets.

Specialty RV’s general sales manager says everything under warranty has been fixed and they’ve executed repairs above and beyond for Riffle, even having parts expedited by the manufacturer.

“They don’t understand the frustration. It’s a brand new unit we should not be having trouble with this unit,” said Riffle.

Riffle says an attorney is looking into whether he has a case under the Ohio Lemon Law.

“We’re pushing 60 days and according to an attorney 60 days would make it a lemon law,” said Riffle.

Ohio Lemon Law does cover RVs. There must be 3 unsuccessful repairs of the same defect, 30 days out of service, or an unsuccessful repair of a problem that could hurt someone badly or become deadly.

“If the plastic can melt off the side of the unit I’m sure it can probably get hot enough to actually catch a fire,” said Riffle.

Riffle says he talked with Specialty RV about buying back the camper, swapping it out, or paying the difference between a new and used one and get this one rebuilt by the manufacturer.

“We’re not comfortable with the camper no more, too many issues. We’ve been lucky twice nothing severe has happened but who knows the third trip out what’s going to happen,” said Riffle.

Specialty RV says the customer can take his camper home but refuses to, and that everything under warranty has been repaired. Less than a week after ABC 6 On Your Side stepped in, Riffle says Specialty RV is now offering him a deal for a swap for a different camper.

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

Call for Lemon Law – 6PR

There are calls for a so-called Lemon Law to be introduced to give consumers more protection from faulty products.

Current laws allow consumers to receive a refund or replacement if a major failure occurs.

But the Consumer Action Law Centre’s Denise Boyd told Mornings with Gareth Parker the law should be expanded to cover any product which fails within the first six months.

Download this podcast here

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

FASNY Applauds Albany for Passing Fire Truck “Lemon Law,” Urges Governor to Sign – LongIsland.com

New legislation protects fire departments against pricey, defective fire apparatus.

Albany, NY – June 21, 2018 – Ken Pienkowski, the President of the Firemen’s Association of the State of New York (FASNY) issued the following statement applauding the New York State Senate and Assembly for unanimously passing S. 08251 / A. 10424.

 

President Ken Pienkowski: “There have been too many instances of fire trucks and ambulances being out of service for extended periods of time while dealers negotiate and seek repairs from manufacturers. This often increases response times, denying New Yorkers rapid access to live-saving equipment and services while wasting money that many localities simply do not have. This legislation solves this problem by making manufacturers responsible for any defects. FASNY is grateful State Senator Joseph E. Robach and Assemblymember Monica Wallace for sponsoring this legislation and to the entire Legislature for passing it. We urge Governor Andrew Cuomo to sign this bill into law without delay.”

 

This legislation creates an emergency vehicle “lemon law” for fire vehicles and ambulances that allows for timely, direct recourse against the manufacturer; requires the manufacturer to fix the vehicle within a given time frame; and, if the manufacturer fails to comply with that time frame, requires that a replacement vehicle be issued. In addition, municipalities may avail themselves of an alternate arbitration mechanism established pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Attorney General’s office.

 

If signed, the legislation will take effect on January 1, 2019.

 

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

This RSS feed URL is deprecated

The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program.

The time or date displayed reflects when an article was added to or updated in Google News.

RSS&middotOther News Editions&middotAbout Google News&middotAbout Feeds&middotBlog&middotHelp&middotFeedback&middotPrivacy&middotTerms of Use
©2017 Google&middotGoogle Home&middotAdvertising Programs&middotBusiness Solutions&middotAbout Google

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by: