Bryan’s legal practice includes defending individual clients and both large and small businesses in complex cases including commercial disputes, employment litigation, catastrophic personal injuries and wrongful death claims. He has successfully represented clients on appeal in the state of Illinois and before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Bryan has litigated insurance coverage disputes at the trial court and appellate levels, has litigated intellectual property disputes and is a member of Litchfield Cavo’s financial institutions class action team.
Bryan is an experienced attorney with more than 24 years of litigation practice in multiple federal court jurisdictions and the states of Illinois and Wisconsin.
- Francescatti v. Germanotta, et al., 2014 WL 2767231 (N.D. Ill. 2014)
- Obtained summary judgment in favor of producer/musician accused of copyright infringement.
- Kindle v. Waukegan Community Unit School District 60, Case No. 10-1168 (7th 2010)
- Summary judgement in favor of employer in alleged employment discrimination claim affirmed on appeal.
- Badger Mutual Ins. Co. v. 1212 Restaurant Group, LLC, et al., 1-09-2207 (Ill. 1st 2010)
- Successfully represented insurance company against counterclaims of bad faith in relation to denial of coverage and denial of clam for insured’s attorney’s fees that were related to “offensive” litigation.
- Samuelson v. LaPorte Community School Corporation, et al., 526 F.3d 1046 (7th 2008)
- Successfully argued on appeal for affirmance of summary judgment finding that school district’s “chain-of-command” policy was not an unconstitutional prior restraint, and employee had no basis for alleged adverse employment action.
- Albrecht v. Meridienne Corp., 03 L 6354, Circuit Court of Cook County, IL
- Obtained defense verdict for subcontractor accused of negligence in closed head injury to cement finisher.
- Obtained summary judgment on behalf of condominium association and property management clients against Plaintiff claiming they suffered an eye injury due to unsafe water chemical levels in our clients’ pool; after establishing that our clients fulfilled the duty of reasonable care and refuting claims of proximate cause, the court granted our motion.