Brant v. Rosen

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 5th District Appellate » 2007 » Brant v. Rosen

Brant v. Rosen

State: Illinois

Court: 5th District Appellate

Docket No: 5-04-0516 Rel

Case Date: 04/27/2007

Preview:NO. 5-04-0516
N O T IC E Decision filed 04/27/07. The text of this dec ision m ay b e changed or corrected prior to the P e t i ti o n for filing of a or the

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

Re hea ring

FIFTH DISTRICT ________________________________________________________________________ IVAN BRANT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICK ROSEN and ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.C., ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County. No. 03-L-418

disposition of the same.

) ) ) Defendants-Appellants, ) ) and ) ) DWIGHT HARDIN, ) Honorable ) Lloyd A. Cueto, Defendant. ) Judge, presiding. ________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE STEWART1 delivered the opinion of the court: Two of the defendants, Rick Rosen (Rosen) and Rosen Law Firm, P.C. (law firm), appeal from the St. Clair County circuit court's denial of their motion to dismiss the plaintiff Ivan Brant's complaint pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens . The defendants assert that St. Clair County, which is the county where Rosen resides and where his law firm is located, is an inappropriate forum for the plaintiff's professional negligence and fraud claims arising from the defendants' representation of the plaintiff. We affirm. BACKGROUND The plaintiff filed a six-count complaint alleging professional negligence and fraud

1

Justice McGlynn participated in oral argument. Justice Stewart was later substituted

on the panel and has read the briefs and listened to the audiotape of oral argument. 1

against Rosen, the law firm, and the third defendant, Dwight Hardin (Hardin), who is employed as a consultant by the law firm. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he retained Rosen and the law firm to represent him in his claim for damages against his employer, Union Pacific Railroad Company, for injuries he received during the course of his employment. The plaintiff alleged that both Rosen and Hardin told him that they were licensed, practicing attorneys, even though Hardin was not an attorney. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants negligently "instructed and counseled" him to settle his case against the railroad for less than its fair value, failed to conduct an adequate investigation into the liability and damage evidence, and settled his case without filing suit or conducting any discovery and before he attained maximum medical improvement. The plaintiff alleged that he received substantially less in settlement for his case than it was worth and, therefore, "suffered significant damages in the form of inappropriate compensation for past and future medical expenses, past and future wages, pain, suffering, disability[,] and disfigurement." In addition to the professional negligence claims, the plaintiff also claimed that each defendant was guilty of fraud, in that Rosen, individually and through the law firm and Hardin, made several untrue statements of material fact. Those alleged statements included that Hardin was an attorney qualified to represent the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was required to accept the railroad's settlement offer of $150,000 or be forced to accept $20,000 and relocate to Utah as a security guard. The plaintiff also alleged the defendants had misrepresented that his settlement included medical coverage for him and his family and that they had fully investigated the case before recommending the settlement. In response to the plaintiff's first amended complaint, the defendants filed a motion based upon forum non conveniens , contending that the complaint should be dismissed under the Illinois Supreme Court decision in Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167, 797 N.E.2d 687 (2003), "as having little or no connection with the State of Illinois." In support

2

of the motion, the defendants attached Rosen's and Hardin's affidavits and filed a memorandum of law. The defendants alleged that certain facts supported a dismissal, including the following: that the plaintiff was a resident of Scott City, Missouri; that the plaintiff's work injury occurred near Osage City, Missouri; that all the witnesses to the plaintiff's work injury lived in M issouri; that the plaintiff's medical treatment and physical therapy occurred in Missouri; that all the plaintiff's treating physicians were located in or near Cape Girardeau, Missouri; that one of the defendants, Hardin, was a resident of Missouri; that Rosen never met with the plaintiff or any representative of the railroad in Illinois; and that Hardin never met anyone from the railroad in Illinois. In his affidavit, Rosen averred that he was licensed to practice law in both Illinois and Missouri and that his office was located in St. Clair County, Illinois. Rosen stated that he and the law firm concentrated their practice "in the representation of railroad workers in claims brought under the Federal Employers['] Liability Act (FELA) [(45 U.S.C.

Download Brant v. Rosen.pdf