Bradley T. Wilders

Kansas City - Partner | 816-714-7126 (Direct) | wilders@stuevesiegel.com

Bradley Wilders represents small and large clients in complex, commercial litigation.  He has both defended and successfully obtained substantial recoveries on behalf of his clients, including patent, copyright, and antitrust cases.  He earned his undergraduate degree and juris doctorate from the University of Missouri – Columbia.  After law school, he clerked for the Honorable John R. Gibson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, where he was given the rare opportunity to work on cases in five of the eleven federal appellate courts.  Since he began practice, Brad has handled multiple, successful appellate cases. 

Prior to joining Stueve Siegel Hanson, Brad worked for an Am Law 100 international firm in Chicago where he defended one of the world’s largest computer companies against multiple accusations of patent infringement.

In 2015, Brad was named a partner at Stueve Siegel Hanson.  He has been responsible for oral argument, depositions, and trial briefing in several cases where the damages exceed one billion dollars.  His most rewarding case, however, was representing a local photographer whose work was illegally used by the Kansas City Chiefs in Arrowhead Stadium.  In 2016, he was asked by a federal judge to serve as and subsequently appointed to serve as a special master, overseeing discovery disputes and settlement matters in a complex class-action case.

  • EXPERIENCE
  • HONORS & AWARDS
  • EDUCATION
  • BAR ADMISSIONS

RECENT RESULTS

Associated Wholesale Grocers Inc. et al. v. United Egg Producers et al.  Brad represented a grocery wholesaler and several Kansas City-area grocery stores in a lawsuit against the largest trade group of egg producers and several egg producers.  The lawsuit alleged that egg producers conspired to fix the price of eggs by coordinating supply reductions across the United States in violation of antitrust law.  After nearly four years of litigation, Stueve Siegel Hanson successfully resolved this litigation in 2014.

Hank Young v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc. From 2011 to 2013, Brad represented Hank Young, a respected and nationally recognized photographer who took photographs of the Kansas City Chiefs for forty years.  Mr. Young alleged that the team and others who worked on the renovation of Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City, Missouri used his photographs without authorization as a central design element of the new stadium.   The lawsuit filed by Brad and Stueve Siegel Hanson partner Patrick J. Stueve asserted claims for copyright infringement and fraud.

Joannou v. Lincoln Hockey LLC, et al. Brad represented a Washington D.C. area artist in a lawsuit against the owners of the Washington Capitals, a National Hockey League team, for copyright infringement. The lawsuit alleged that defendants copied and misappropriated the plaintiff's copyrighted logo designs throughout all forms of media and merchandising. This matter has been settled to the mutual satisfaction of the parties.

Seaboard Corp. v. Marsh Inc. Brad represented Seaboard, one of Kansas's largest businesses, against insurance companies Marsh Inc. and AIG. Seaboard sought $66 million in premiums paid and several million dollars in consulting fees from its insurance broker Marsh and insurance giant AIG for illegally conspiring to rig Seaboard's bids. Seaboard's complaint arose out of allegations made by the New York Attorney General and an ongoing federal class action. The case went to the Kansas Supreme Court on an issue of first impression regarding the statute of limitations that was favorably resolved for Brad’s client.

Leiszler v. Align Technology, Inc. Brad represented a putative nationwide class of more than 22,000 dentists and orthodontists against Align Technology, Inc., the makers of Invisalign, for unfair and fraudulent business practices in the State of California. Plaintiffs alleged that Align unfairly and fraudulently suspended or decertified doctors who paid $2,000 to become trained to prescribe Invisalign for failing to prescribe enough yearly casesThe case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs for more than $44 million in injunctive relief, along with nearly $7.8 million cash settlement fund.

 

CURRENT CASES

Perrin v. Papa John’s.  Brad represents thousands of pizza delivery drivers who worked for Papa John’s in minimum-wage cases, where drivers allege they were not fully reimbursed for the costs of using their personal cars to deliver pizzas.  They recently succeeded in obtaining class certification.  Brad was involved in the briefing of that motion.  Discovery is ongoing.

Bezich v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Co., Brad represents Peter Bezich, who purchased a variable-universal-life-insurance policy and alleges that the insurer overcharged him for the cost of that insurance in violation of the policy.  Mr. Bezich recently moved for class certification and the parties are waiting for a ruling.

Cox v. General Motors.  Brad is one of the attorneys at Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP who represent a GM car owner who purchased a vehicle that is subject to GM’s nationwide recall for faulty ignition switches. 

Ryan et al. v. Skyline Medical, Inc.  Brad represents a Wisconsin inventor who designed a patented device for removing surgical fluid from the operating table.  The lawsuit alleges that the company who sells the product breached its contract with Ryan to pay him royalties and defrauded him into giving up ownership in the patents. 

 

 

Illinois, 2007

Missouri, 2008

U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit

University of Missouri Columbia School of Law, Columbia, Missouri, 2007
J.D.
Honors: Cum Laude 
Honors: Order of the Coif
Law Review: Missouri Law Review, Lead Articles Editor

University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, 2001
B.S.
Major:  Computer Science

Missouri & Kansas Super Lawyers, 2013-2016

Missouri & Kansas Rising Stars, 2012

Professional Organizations

The Missouri Bar Association

The Illinois Bar Association

Kansas City Missouri Bar Association

American Bar Association

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.

The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.