Patrick J. Stueve

Kansas City - Partner | 816-714-7110 (Direct) | stueve@stuevesiegel.com

Patrick J. Stueve has been recognized by his peers as one of the top commercial trial lawyers in the country for his efforts over the past 25 years. He has been named to The Best Lawyers in America for Commercial Litigation, Top 100 Super Lawyers in Kansas and Missouri, "Local Litigation Star" by Benchmark Plaintiffs, and "Best of the Bar" by the Kansas City Business Journal.

Patrick has prosecuted claims in federal and state courts nationwide in the areas of antitrust, intellectual property, securities fraud and other commercial torts against some of the largest businesses in the world including Formula 1 Racing, Citigroup, United Health Care, and AIG. Patrick has also successfully prosecuted several national and state wide class actions against global giants including Sprint, Volkswagen, Merck & Co. and Mitsubishi involving a wide variety of unlawful business practices.  His national practice has provided him the privilege of representing family owned and small businesses like Overlap Inc. (a software developer) and Heartland Spine & Specialty Hospital (a physician owned facility) as well as Fortune 500 companies like Seaboard Corporation and Ford Motor Company. His greatest satisfaction has been the trust he has earned from these clients by delivering hard fought results --including securing more than $300 million in jury verdicts, arbitration awards and settlements -- often in high stakes, bet the company cases.

 

  • EXPERIENCE
  • HONORS & AWARDS
  • EDUCATION
  • BAR ADMISSIONS
  • COMMUNITY

RECENT RESULTS

In March 2014, in Radon Sport, Inc. v. Sports Car Club of America et al., Case No: 13-2178 (U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas), a confidential settlement was with reached with all defendants. Patrick represented Radon Sport, Inc. in an antitrust action against several race cars manufacturers and the industry’s sanctioning body. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants engaged in a long-running conspiracy to prevent them from entering the market for Formula Continental race cars.  

In February 2014, in Chubb Engineering, LLC v. USA Tank Sales and Erection Company and Cameron Holdings Corp., Case No: 13-2252 (U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas), Patrick represented Chubb Engineering against the defendants for misappropriation of trade secrets as it relates to tank fabrication and manufacturing. A confidential settlement was reached.

In June 2013, in Young v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc. et al, Case No. 4:11-cv-00354 (U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri), The Kansas City Chiefs, Hank Young, and the other parties involved reached a settlement of the dispute over the use of Mr. Young's photographs of the Kansas City Chiefs in the renovations of Arrowhead Stadium. Mr. Young will continue to be the copyright holder and own his historical library of photographs.  As part of the settlement, the Chiefs have obtained the unlimited and unrestricted right to use Mr. Young's photographs in perpetuity.

In April 2013, in Berry et al. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., Case No. 0516-cv-01171 (U.S. Circuit Court Jackson County, Missouri at Independence), the Missouri Supreme Court (No. SC92770) upheld attorney’s fees awarded in the settlement of the case, including the lodestar amount and the use of a multiplier. In June 2010, Patrick as lead counsel in a Missouri state-wide class action against Volkswagen obtained complete relief for the class in a settlement secured 10 days before the multi-week trial. Plaintiffs claim that Volkswagen installed window regulators in the Volkswagen Jetta, Golf, GTI and Cabriolet vehicles, model years 1995-1999, that were defective and thus prone to premature failure and that, instead of fixing these defective parts at no charge to the consumer, Volkswagen made the consumer pay to replace the defective window regulator part. Under the settlement, Volkswagen has agreed to reimburse all expenses incurred by VW owners in the past related to repairing/replacing the defective window regulators plus $75 for each documented incident or workshop visit in which one or more window regulator failures were diagnosed, repaired or replaced. 

In October 2012, Patrick reached a confidential settlement in Seaboard Corp. v. Marsh Inc. and AIG, Inc. in favor of the plaintiff. Patrick represented Seaboard, one of Kansas's largest businesses, against insurance companies Marsh Inc. and AIG. Seaboard sought millions of dollars  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 arises out of allegations made by the New York Attorney General and an ongoing federal class action. 

In October 2012, a settlement was reached in Mary Plubell, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., Case NO. 04CV235817 (Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri). Patrick  brought a Missouri statewide class action on behalf of all Missouri purchasers of Vioxx, the Cox-2 pain reliever that Merck pulled off the market after the FDA identified several misleading sales practices used by Merck to market the product.  The case was removed to Federal District Court for the Western District of Missouri under CAFA after SSH amended the complaint.  Pat argued and won in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals the affirmation of the trial court's remand to state court. The case was certified as a class action. Under the settlement terms, qualifying Missouri consumers of Vioxx may be reimbursed in full for their Vioxx purchases. The common fund settlement provide for payment to class members under two options: (1) a one-time cash payment of $180 to Settlement Class Members who submit a valid claim form with a declaration under oath (but no documentary proof of payment required) and (2) $90 for each month of Vioxx purchases supported by a declaration under oath with documentary proof of payments, such as a letter from the prescribing physician.

In February 2012, a confidential settlement was reached in Manning et al. v. PIA Assets, LLC et al.,Case No. 10AE-CV-04468 (Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri).  Patrick's clients sued for breach of contract and fiduciary duty against PIA Assets LLC, Neal L. Patterson and Clifford W. Illig.  PIA Assets owns and manages The National Golf Club of Kansas City, The National II (Deuce) Golf Club, Parkville Commons shopping district and the Loch Lloyd Country Club.  Mr. Patterson and Mr. Illig serve as two of the three Managing Members of PIA Assets.  Defendants Patterson and Illig also serve as Chairman of the Board and CEO and Vice Chairman of the Board of Cerner Corporation, respectively.  The lawsuit alleged that PIA Assets failed to meet its obligations to pay plaintiffs under the parties' Operating Agreement.  Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants Patterson and Illig breached their fiduciary duties by refusing to pay plaintiffs from available gross cash proceeds as they promised and were obligated to under the Operating Agreement. 

In January 2012, Patrick successfully obtained a $2.7 million settlement for Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Intrust Bank and its affiliates for overdraft fees assessed by the bank to their customers.  The case is Molina v. Intrust Bank, N.A., Case No. 10-DV-3686 (District Court, Sedgwick County, Kansas).

In November 2011, a California federal judge approved a $25 million settlement between a class of direct purchasers of automotive lighting products and several manufacturers accused of participating in a wide-ranging price-fixing scheme.  Patrick served as lead counsel.  The case is Aftermarket Automotive Lighting Products Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:09-ml-02007 (U.S. District Court, Central District, California).

In November 2011, Patrick secured a $19 million settlement in a class action lawsuit against Bank of Oklahoma for overdraft fees charged to customers.  The case is Eaton v. Bank of Oklahoma, N.A., Case No. CJ-2010-05209 (District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma).

In May 2011, Patrick successfully negotiated a $7.8 million settlement of a class action lawsuit against UMB Bank and its affiliated entities for overdraft fees charged to customers.  The lawsuit alleged that these practices violated Missouri's consumer protection laws and UMB's contracts with its customers.  The case is Allen et al. v. UMB Bank et al., Case No. 1016-cv-34791 (Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri). 

In April 2011, Patrick secured a nationwide settlement on behalf of over 22,000 dentists and orthodontists who had been decertified by defendant Align Technology, Inc. to prescribe Align's Invisalign braces. The settlement makes available to the class more than $44 million in injunctive relief, along with a nearly $7 million cash settlement fund. The Claims asserted were for unfair and fraudulent business practices under California law. 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 cases. Under the settlement, the entire class will be recertified at no cost to the class members or they can choose a cash settlement. Those orthodontists or dentists who already paid the $2,000 to be reinstated after being decertified will receive full reimbursement under the settlement after paying their pro-rata share of court costs and fees. The case is Leiszler v. Align Technology, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-02010 (U.S. District Court Northern District of California). 

In October 2010, Pat successfully concluded a multi- million dollar securities fraud case (McCormack- Missouri Wireless, Inc. et. al v George K. Baum & Co.) brought on behalf of several independent telephone companies against investment banks Brown Brothers Harriman and George K. Baum for sales practices related to now-defunct $100 million Crossroads Wireless project. The case ended with a confidential settlement with Baum and Brown Brothers.

In June 2010, Patrick as lead counsel in a Missouri state-wide class action against Volkswagen obtained complete relief for the class in a settlement secured 10 days before the multi-week trial. Plaintiffs claim that Volkswagen installed window regulators in the Volkswagen Jetta, Golf, GTI and Cabriolet vehicles, model years 1995-1999, that were defective and thus prone to premature failure and that, instead of fixing these defective parts at no charge to the consumer, Volkswagen made the consumer pay to replace the defective window regulator part. Under the settlement, Volkswagen has agreed to reimburse all expenses incurred by VW owners in the past related to repairing/replacing the defective window regulators plus $75 for each documented incident or workshop visit in which one or more window regulator failures were diagnosed, repaired or replaced. The case is Berry et al. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., Case No. 0516-cv-01171 (U.S. Circuit Court Jackson County, Missouri at Independence).

In February 2010, Patrick successfully concluded Tenant Development Association v. Dickey's Barbecue Restaurant; (Business Litigation). Patrick's Springfield client sued for tortuous interference, business disparagement, and civil conspiracy against the Dallas, Texas based defendants. TDA offers franchisees construction management services and Defendants have allegedly interfered with TDA's contractual and future business relations resulting in significant past and future damage to TDA. The case was successfully resolved with a confidential settlement. 

In January 2010, Patrick successfully concluded the final software licensing lawsuit in favor of his client Overlap, Inc.  The trademark and licensing cases against several defendants brought nearly $9 million in total recovery to Pat's client.  The client's software was installed on firm networks and/or made available to thousands of brokers without permission and without payment of licensing fees to the Kansas City software company.

In September 2009, Patrick successfully represented Seaboard Corporation, Seaboard Overseas Limited and Seaboard Overseas Trading and Shipping (Proprietary) Limited (collectively Seaboard) against Grindrod Limited, the largest logistics and shipping company in South Africa, and related entities. Plaintiffs alleged multiple causes of action, including fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, misappropriation of corporate opportunities, tortious interference and civil conspiracy, based upon actions taken by one of Seaboard's former officers and directors, who attempted to raid Seaboard of its key employees and force the transfer of Seaboard's highly profitable overseas trading and shipping business for a price far below fair market value. Plaintiffs intended to seek more than $100 million at trial in actual and punitive damages. Approximately six weeks before a three week jury trial was to begin in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, Stueve Siegel Hanson settled this lawsuit.

This lawsuit had a complicated and unusual procedural history. Throughout the litigation, Grindrod attempted multiple times to transfer this lawsuit out of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri. SSH successful fought Grindrod's attempt to remove this litigation to federal court and attempt to compel arbitration in New York. The Circuit Court of Jackson County denied Grindrod's motion to compel arbitration, which was affirmed by the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District in a unanimous decision in January 2008. The Supreme Court of Missouri ultimately denied Grindrod's application to transfer and the United States Supreme Court similarly denied Grindrod's Writ of Certiorari. Discovery in this lawsuit spanned multiple continents, including two full weeks of depositions in South Africa.

In March 2009, Patrick settled two more software licensing, trademark and copyright cases on behalf of Overlap Inc. a Kansas City based software company against several national securities firms. The client's software was installed on firm networks and/or made available to thousands of brokers without permission and without payment of licensing fees to the Kansas City software company.

In February 2009, Patrick secured a $650,000.00 jury verdict and judgment against Kansas City Life Insurance Company in a breach of contract case seeking payments due to SSH's client under his incentive compensation agreement with Kansas City Life Insurance Company. This verdict and judgment was on top of the $1.4 million paid to SSH's client after the lawsuit was file but before trial. KCL countersued for Breach of Fiduciary duty and the jury rendered a verdict in favor of SSH's client.

In March 2008, Patrick settled a landmark Sherman Act I antitrust lawsuit brought against the largest Managed Care Organizations and Hospital Systems in Kansas City. Patrick's client Heartland Spine & Specialty Hospital, a physician owned spine and specialty acute care hospital in Overland Park, Kansas, claimed that the dominant hospital systems had conspired among themselves and with the dominant Managed Care Organizations to prevent Heartland from obtaining in-network provider contracts. Heartland also alleged the defendants tortiously interfered with Heartland's ability to obtain provider contracts. Over 100 depositions were taken in the case and nearly 4 million pages of documents were exchanged between the parties. After the trial court denied summary judgment on Heartland's boycott claims and ruled that it had a submissable damages case in excess of $140,000,000 (with treble damages), the case settled with all 11 defendants. Pat and his firm were featured on the cover of Modern Health Care twice while the case was pending. The case was also frequently covered in The National Law Journal as well as other leading health care and antitrust publications.

In February 2008, Patrick won a $7.1 million verdict from a Jackson County, Missouri jury in a breach of license, fraud and unfair competition case.  The jury awarded both actual and punitive damages after a two week trial.  This is one of several cases Pat has brought on behalf of a Kansas City software developer against some of the largest national brokerage firms in the country for violating Overlap's licensing and intellectual property rights. 

In January 2008, Patrick successfully argued before the Missouri Western District Court of Appeals that SSH's client Seaboard Corporation and related entities have the right to pursue their breach of fiduciary duty and other tort claims in Jackson County rather than in New York through binding arbitration. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that none of the tort claims arise out of the two alleged arbitration provisions relied on by Defendants. Defendants have now sought review before the United States Supreme Court.

In November 2007, Patrick obtained a $1.6 million policy limit settlement in a run a way trailer case that resulted in the tragic death of the father of his clients. The lawsuit claimed that Defendants failed to conduct even a cursory inspection of the trailer and truck prior to operating the vehicle that would have revealed the improper ball and hitch assembly, the improper installation and use of the safety chain, and the unconnected safety cable and electronic braking device on the home made 2-ton trailer that resulted in the wrongful death.

In March 2006, Patrick tried and won a $70 million dollar Franchise, Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act case for a family owned Franchisor headquartered in Phoenix Arizona. It was the first case in which the legality of the client's franchise agreement and their right to terminate was litigated. The Texas Franchisee sought $70 million in treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, attorney's fees as well as punitive damages for Fraud. In addition to prevailing on its claims, Patrick's client was awarded over $400,000.00 in fees and expenses by the Phoenix, Arizona arbitrator.

In February 2006, Patrick successfully argued before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals the first case in the Eighth Circuit to address federal removal jurisdiction under CAFA when a state court petition is amended by the plaintiff and then removed to federal court by a defendant claiming a new case commenced allowing jurisdiction under CAFA.  The Eighth Circuit affirmed the trial court's remand back to State court. (Plubell v. Merck).

In October 2005, Patrick successfully completed the prosecution of a Sherman Act I conspiracy antitrust claim in New York federal court on behalf of a family owned business that had been blocked from the market at issue through long term exclusive dealing contracts by the dominant firm in the market. Patrick obtained an eight figure settlement for his client.

In the summer 2004, Patrick also successfully prosecuted in New York a franchise case against a billion dollar franchisor that resulted in an eight figure settlement for a family owned franchisee headquartered in Kansas City.

In February 2003, Patrick won a jury verdict in favor of his client in Aftermarket Technology v. Gulf Insurance Company, a $7 million insurance coverage and bad faith lawsuit tried in the Federal District Court, Western District of Missouri.

RECENT PEER RECOGNITION

Patrick was named one of the Top 100 Super Lawyers in Missouri and Kansas, and has been voted by his peers as Best of the Bar in Kansas City for the past several years. Patrick was named a "Local Litigation Star" by Benchmark Plaintiffs for 2011, 2012, and 2013 and recently named to The Best Lawyers in America for Commercial Litigation. He is also AV rated, the highest Martindale Hubbell ranking a lawyer can receive. Patrick has been selected as a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum, recognized as the most prestigious group of trial lawyers in the United States. Patrick is the past President of the Lawyers Association of Kansas City and currently serves as a Board member of the Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association and chairs the Managing Partner Committee.  He is also a member of the Missouri Supreme Court's E- Discovery Committee.

CURRENT CASES                          

James S. Allen, Jr. v. PIA Assets, LLC, RP Golf, LLC. – Patrick represents Mr. Allen who is seeking repayment of an $800,000 loan he made in 2006 and that matured in 2012.

Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. United Potato Growers of America, Inc. et al. – Patrick represents Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. against the country’s largest potato growers and shippers alleging that these defendants fixed the price of fresh and processed potatoes. The plaintiff alleges that starting in 2004, defendants conspired to use pre-harvest and post-harvest methods to control and reduce the supply of potatoes in order to raise and stabilize the prices at which potatoes were sold in the United States.

Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., v. Cadbury Adams USA, LLC, et al. - Patrick representsAssociated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. against the country's largest chocolate candy manufacturers alleging that these defendants fixed the price of chocolate candy bars sold in the United States. The plaintiff alleges that starting as early as 2002, defendants coordinated a series of price increases on their chocolate candy products. Defendants' unlawful agreement allowed them to increase profit margins on sales of U.S. chocolate candy products.

Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., et al. v. United Egg Producers, et al. -  Patrick represents Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Four B Corporation (d/b/a/ Balls Food Stores), Cosentino Group, Inc., Cosentino Enterprises, Inc., Mid Am Food Enterprises, Inc., and CNW Foods, Inc. against egg producers and egg industry trade groups for artificial inflation of egg prices.  The lawsuit alleges that this control and manipulation of the price of shell eggs and egg products violates the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act. This litigation is currently pending in the District of Wyandotte County, Kansas.  In March 2012, Patrick successfully argued against the eleven motions to dismiss filed by defendants. Discovery in this litigation is currently underway and trial is anticipated in 2014.

Insurance Overcharges Investigation. Patrick is currently prosecuting claims against Lincoln National, Midland, MetLife, Nationwide and PacLife for “Cost of Insurance” overcharges in connection with life insurance policies which contain an investment, interest bearing, or savings component in addition to a death benefit.

Dynacorn Autobody Parts Inc. v Genra Corporation et. al: (Antitrust) Patrick is prosecuting Sherman Act I claims on behalf of several direct purchasers of aftermarket lighting products. Pat's client's have allegedly paid artificial high prices for aftermarket lighting products as a result of a price fixing scheme among the defendants that has resulted in eliminating competition among the alleged conspirators and thereby establishing artificially high prices paid by wholesalers including Pat's clients. The case is pending in the Central District of California.

 

TRIAL AND LITIGATION EXPERIENCE

The following cases are examples of Pat's past experience.

ANTITRUST

Seaboard Corp. v. Marsh Inc. and AIG, Inc. – In October 2012, Patrick reached a confidential settlement in favor of the plaintiff. Patrick represented  Seaboard, one of Kansas's largest businesses, against insurance companies Marsh Inc. and AIG. Seaboard sought  millions of dollars  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 arises out of allegations made by the New York Attorney General and an ongoing federal class action.

Heartland v. Columbia HCA: Patrick successfully prosecuted a $140 million Sherman Act I boycott claim on behalf of Heartland, a physician owned spine and specialty acute care hospital. Heartland claimed that the dominant hospital systems conspired among themselves and with the dominant Managed Care Organizations to prevent Heartland from obtaining in-network provider contracts. Heartland also alleged the defendants tortiously interfered with Heartland's ability to obtain provider contracts. After denial of summary judgment and a Daubert hearing finding Heartland had a submissable case on damages, the case settled with the remaining 11 defendants, just weeks before an April 1, 2008 trial setting.

Global Jet v. Flight Safety International: Patrick successfully prosecuted a Sherman Act I claim alleging conspiracy to restrain trade against a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary in Federal District Court, Eastern District New York. Global Jet estimated its damages exceeded $20 million in lost profits. Flight Safety brought multimillion dollar counterclaims alleging numerous copyright violations relating to corporate jet training manuals created by Global Jet. The case resulted in a confidential settlement.

In Formula One Licensing B.v. v. Purple Interactive Limited: Patrick represented a London, England based defendant who counter sued the sponsors of the FIA Formula One World Championship in the Northern District of California for violating Sherman Act Section 1 and 2. The antitrust claims involved both conspiracy in restraint of trade and illegal monopolization claims, all pertaining to the operation, management, and internet presence of the FIA Formula One World Championship. The counterclaim defendants included Formula One Management and the Federation International de Automobile, the worldwide sanctioning authority for motor sport. Patrick deposed the key executives of Formula One Racing including Bernie Ecclestone the founder of Formula One in London England. After successfully defeating counterclaim defendants' motion to dismiss and a motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims against defendant, the case resulted in a confidential settlement only a few weeks from trial.

Craftsmen Limousine v. Ford Motor Company et. al: Patrick was lead counsel for Ford in defending Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2 claims of conspiracy, monopolization, and attempt to monopolize the limousine industry. Plaintiffs also alleged fraud and tortuous interference with contract, seeking millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages, and equitable relief. After trial, appeal and reversal on appeal, the case was resolved in Ford's favor on summary judgment.

Wichita Clinic v. Columbia HCA: Patrick successfully prosecuted and settled a Sherman Act Section 2 attempt to monopolize, fraud and tortious interference with contract claims brought by his client, the largest physician group in the State of Kansas, against the largest hospital chain in the world. The physicians sought both equitable and compensatory damages for the defendants' anticompetitive conduct. The case resulted in a confidential settlement.

In 2003, Patrick prosecuted and settled federal antitrust claims against a Houston, Texas, corporation for attempting to monopolize a commercial insulation market, obtaining both equitable and compensatory relief. He also, recently prosecuted and successfully settled Sherman Act Section 1 and 2 claims for a California corporation in federal court in San Francisco, California. In 2001, Patrick successfully prosecuted a Michigan corporation in Jackson County Circuit Court for violations of state antitrust laws.

COPYRIGHT, PATENT, TRADEMARK, AND LICENSING CLAIMS

Overlap Inc. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Case No. 04-0025, U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri. Patrick successfully prosecuted Copyright, Trademark and software violations against Citigroup.  Overlap alleged that its software which identifies "overlap" in the security holdings of two or more mutual funds was installed on firm networks or made available to thousands of brokers without permission and without payment of licensing fees.  After deposing several Citigroup corporate representatives in New York, defeating Defendant's motion to summary judgment and just days before trial, the case was resolved through a confidential settlement.

Overlap Inc. v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-0047, U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.  Patrick successfully prosecuted Copyright, Trademark and software violations against Raymond James.  Overlap alleged that its software which identifies overlap in the security holdings of two or more mutual funds was installed on the firm's intranet site and made available to thousands of brokers without permission and without payment of licensing fees.  After deposing several executives in Tampa, Florida, fully briefing Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the case was resolved through a confidential settlement.

Warner Brother Entertainment, Inc. v. A.v.E. L.A., Inc., Case No. 06 Cv 00546, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri: Patrick defended a Los Angeles California company specializing in vintage poster art and products that use the poster art owned by A.v.E.L.A. Warner Brothers claimed that A.v.E.L.A. licensed products that violate alleged copyright and trademark rights in the movies "Gone With The Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" and also allegedly violate the Lanham Act and state unfair competition laws. A.v.E.L.A. counterclaimed seeking a declaratory judgment clearly establishing its right to use its public domain posters on the various products it has licensed using these nostalgic posters.

Global Jet Services, Inc. v. Flight Safety International, Case No. 04 Civ. 4245, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York: Patrick successfully defended multimillion dollar copyright counterclaims against his client Global Jet. The counterclaims alleged numerous copyright violations relating to corporate jet training manuals created by Global Jet and sought millions of dollars in damages. The counterclaims were in response to Global Jet's antitrust claims. The case resulted in a confidential settlement.

Realty Executives International, Inc. v. Gary T. Yarbrough: Patrick tried and won a $70 million dollar Franchise, Fraud, Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Unfair Competition case for a family owned Franchisor headquartered in Phoenix Arizona. It was the first case in which the legality of the client's franchise agreement and their right to terminate was litigated. The Texas Franchise also accused REI of violating unfair competition laws by failing to protect its trademark and enforce is trademark rights. The Texas Franchisee sought treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, attorney's fees as well as punitive damages for Fraud. In addition to prevailing on its claims, Patrick's client was awarded over $400,000 in fees and expenses by the Phoenix Arizona arbitrator.

Universal Money Centers, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.: Patrick tried and defeated Plaintiff's attempt to permanently enjoin AT&T from using its popular AT&T Universal Card after AT&T had spent millions of dollars promoting its hugely popular credit card. After trial, the Court entered judgment in favor of AT&T on all counts. This important case is often cited in trademark treatises and significant trademark infringement cases.

Formula One Licensing B.v. v. Purple Interactive Limited: Patrick represented a London, England based defendant who operated the most popular web magazine covering the sport formula 1 motor racing. Plaintiff claimed that our client's fromula1.com internet magazine infringed Plaintiff's alleged rights in the terms formula 1, f1, and formula one and that our clients violated federal cyber squatting law through registration of various domain names. The case was set for trial in February 2002 in federal court, San Francisco, California. Prior to trial the Court denied Formula One's partial motion for summary judgment that claimed its marks were not generic as a matter of law. Shortly thereafter, the parties settled these claims along with the antitrust counterclaims brought by our client.

Realty Executives International v. J.D. Reece et al.: Patrick recently represented one of the largest real estate franchises in the world prosecuting trademark infringement and tortious interference with contract claims against the largest local real estate franchise and a franchisee after over 40 agents were raided from his client's local franchise and the office was converted to a competitor's location. Patrick went to Court and obtained injunctive relief against both defendants and after the case was removed to federal court, successfully settled against the former franchisee after obtaining a writ of attachment of all the franchisee's assets and defeating the defendant's motion to dismiss. He then obtained equitable and compensatory relief from J.D. Reece.

Mid-America Realty et al. v. vIP Realty. Patrick sued vIP in Federal District Court in Kansas and at the Preliminary Injunction hearing obtained a stipulated injunction order restraining defendants from continuing trademark and franchise rights violations. The final settlement included permanent injunctive relief and money damages for SSH's clients.

In Realty Executives v. Softouch, Patrick prosecuted trademark infringement claims involving defendant's wrongful use of REI's trademarks on internet search engines and through meta-tags on defendant's web site to direct web traffic to defendant's web site. Patrick obtained full equitable relief against the defendant including requiring the defendant to shut down its web site. The case was prosecuted in the Federal District Court, Western District of Missouri.

Nu-Wool Company et al., v. Certainteed Corporation: Patrick successfully prosecuted unfair competition claims on behalf of two national insulation manufacturers in Federal District Court in Chicago, Illinois. He was able to secure immediate injunctive relief and corrective action, preventing further distribution of defendant's false advertising.

Patrick also prosecuted Lanham Act claims on behalf of Ford for misappropriation of Ford's trademarks. The case was settled with defendant agreeing to permanent injunctive relief to stop using, in any form, Ford's marks on all advertising and products.

In 2000, Patrick prosecuted false advertising claims under the Lahnam Act against Certainteed in federal court in Pensacola, Florida. He successfully settled the claims for both equitable and compensatory relief. In 1999, he prosecuted false advertising claims in federal court in Monroe, Louisiana, and again obtained through settlement the requested equitable and compensatory relief sought.

In CertainTeed vs. CIMA, filed in Federal District Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Patrick defended the Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers Association in a declaratory judgment action raising false advertising claims under the Lanham Act and other unfair competition and contract issues. The case was dismissed by stipulation of the parties.

FRANCHISE

Chuck Borchers, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al.: (Business Litigation) Pat is co-counsel on behalf of several Amoco-branded gasoline dealers in the Kansas City area who have brought contract, tort, and Missouri Motor Fuel Marketing Act claims arising out of the manipulation of gasoline prices that were intended to eliminate the Plaintiff gasoline dealers from competing against Defendants allegedly favored retailers.

Realty Executives International, Inc. v. Gary T. Yarbrough: Patrick tried and won a $70 million dollar Franchise, Fraud, Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Unfair Competition case for a family owned Franchisor headquartered in Phoenix Arizona. It was the first case in which the legality of the client's franchise agreement and their right to terminate was litigated. The Texas Franchise also accused REI of violating unfair competition laws by failing to protect its trademark and enforce is trademark rights. The Texas Franchisee sought treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, attorney's fees as well as punitive damages for Fraud. In addition to prevailing on its claims, Patrick's client was awarded over $400,000 in fees and expenses by the Phoenix Arizona arbitrator.

Hersh v. Robert Half International: Patrick has represented both franchisors and franchisees in a wide variety of disputes arising under Franchise Agreements and State franchise statutes. He has sought and obtained injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages enforcing rights under these agreements and state statutes in both state and federal courts and arbitration. In June 2003 Patrick successfully prosecuted multi-million dollar franchise agreement violation claims on behalf of a Kansas City franchisee against Robert Half International in a New York AAA arbitration proceeding.

Celsius Franchising, Inc. v. Mark Reith: Pat represented a New York franchisee that was sued in Johnson County, Kansas for violations of the Franchise Agreement between the parties. Pat asserted counterclaims on behalf of the Franchisee fraudulent misrepresentations allegedly made by Celsius to induce Reith into a Franchise Agreement with Celsius and to invest in excess of $400,000 to build and run the franchise over a three year period. Specifically, Reith alleged that Celsius misrepresented to Reith the exclusivity of Celsius' tanning beds, cost savings Reith would receive after becoming a franchisee, and the financial performance that Reith could reasonably expect, including providing Reith with inflated financial projections necessary for Reith and his wife Lorraine to obtain a small business loan personally guaranteed by the Reiths. After discovery the case was resolved through a confidential settlement.

Realty Executives International v. VIP: Patrick sued VIP in Federal District Court in Kansas and at the Preliminary Injunction hearing obtained a stipulated injunction order restraining defendants from continuing trademark and franchise rights violations. The final settlement included permanent injunctive relief and money damages for SSH's clients.

Zion Fuels LLC v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc., et al.: Patrick represented a franchisee who participated in a minority recruitment program. Zion fuels alleged various contract claims against Texaco and the case was resolved through a confidential settlement.

In 2003, Patrick also represented a group of franchisees who sued H&R Block for violations of the franchise agreement in Jackson County, Missouri Circuit Court. The multi-million dollar franchise dispute concluded with a confidential settlement.

Over the past 10 years, Patrick has represented Realty Executives International in claims against franchisees for violation of its franchise agreements in courts throughout the country obtaining both injunctive relief and compensatory damages in these cases.

BUSINESS FRAUD/ TORTS/ CONTRACTS

In February 2012, a confidential settlement was reached in Manning et al. v. PIA Assets, LLC et al.,Case No. 10AE-CV-04468 (Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri).  Patrick's clients sued for breach of contract and fiduciary duty against PIA Assets LLC, Neal L. Patterson and Clifford W. Illig.  PIA Assets owns and manages The National Golf Club of Kansas City, The National II (Deuce) Golf Club, Parkville Commons shopping district and the Loch Lloyd Country Club.  Mr. Patterson and Mr. Illig serve as two of the three Managing Members of PIA Assets.  Defendants Patterson and Illig also serve as Chairman of the Board and CEO and Vice Chairman of the Board of Cerner Corporation, respectively.  The lawsuit alleged that PIA Assets failed to meet its obligations to pay plaintiffs under the parties' Operating Agreement.  Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants Patterson and Illig breached their fiduciary duties by refusing to pay plaintiffs from available gross cash proceeds as they promised and were obligated to under the Operating Agreement. 

In Aftermarket v. Gulf Insurance Company: Patrick obtained a jury verdict in March 2003 for his client Gulf Insurance in a multi-million dollar insurance coverage and bad faith dispute arising out of the alleged dishonest actions of a former employee of the Plaintiff who allegedly caused a loss in excess of seven million dollars. The jury found in favor of Gulf on both Plaintiff's insurance coverage and bad faith denial claims brought by Plaintiff. There was no appeal.

In Tri-Cor Industries, Inc. v. Danara Technical Group: Pat obtained a $500,000 judgment in favor of Tri-Cor on both its fraud and contract claims against the defendant. Tri-Cor, a Maryland corporation, was also able to obtain pre-judgment attachment of all the assets of both the company and its principals. SSH is currently enforcing the judgment against the principals of the company.

In Peters v. Ford Motor Company: Patrick recently obtained summary judgment for Ford Motor Company in a Minnesota federal district court after a former manager claimed Ford defamed him following his resignation from Ford.

In Pen -Yan Investments, Inc. v Boyd Gaming, Kansas City: Patrick represented Boyd which was sued for injunctive relief and significant damages for alleged violations of state law and breach of contract in Jackson County Circuit Court. The Court favorably decided several first impression legal issues concerning Missouri's gaming laws. After winning the trial on injunctive relief, the Court granted Boyd's motion for summary judgment on all claims for damages, which was affirmed on appeal.

Orix Credit Alliance v. ILU and Underwriters at Lloyd's & London: Patrick obtained a verdict for his client in a case involving significant insurance coverage issues and confirming Orix's rights under a standard mortgage clause. After trial, judgment was entered in favor of Orix on all its claims and it was awarded over six figures in damages.

Patrick successfully tried and won a breach of contract claim brought against his client in Jackson County Circuit Court for hundreds of thousands of dollars. He has also prosecuted a business fraud claim for a large former Kansas City retailer, obtaining a six-figure settlement. He has also tried and won a six-figure insurance coverage claim for his client in federal court in Springfield, Missouri.

SHAREHOLDER SECURITIES FRAUD/ BREECH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS

Patrick has represented entities in major litigation involving corporate, securities and shareholder legal issues concerning claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty, squeeze out and freeze out strategies, corporate waste and mismanagement, self dealing, and corporate fraud.

In Directory Services LLC v. Ed Walsworth: Patrick's client has been sued by the controlling shareholders to rescind his 20% interest in DSLLC a very successful directory binding printing business. Mr. Walsworth is prosecuting breach of fiduciary claims both directly against the controlling shareholders and derivatively on behalf of the company.

In Blue Cross Blue Shield of Missouri v. Missouri Department of Insurance: The state of Missouri threatened to unwind Blue Cross' corporate reorganization and public offering of Right Choice alleging self-dealing and seek over $200 million in alleged unlawful profits under a constructive trust theory. Patrick defended Blue Cross in this extraordinary case, which involved literally hundreds of complicated questions of corporate and securities law, and was one the leading cases in the country concerning not-for- profits creating for profit subsidiaries through the transfer of substantial assets from the parent not-for-profit.

In Apex Municipal Fund v. George K. Baum: Baum was sued in Houston, Texas, federal court for federal and state securities fraud, fraud, negligence and negligence misrepresentation in the secondary sale of $6 million in bonds. After extensive discovery establishing the claims were unfounded, Baum filed for summary judgment and the claims were favorably settled shortly thereafter.

Patrick has both prosecuted and defended several securities fraud claims before NASD arbitration panels involving fraudulent misrepresentations and a wide variety of other customer complaints.

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Patrick is also legal counsel for two trade associations: the Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers Association and the Reflective Insulation Manufacturers Association where he provides advice concerning product liability, antitrust, trademark and unfair competition issues. He won for CIMA a favorable advisory opinion from the Consumer Products Safety Commission establishing that conflicting local fire testing standards are preempted by the CPSC's cellulose insulation flammability standard.

Patrick has represented plaintiffs and defendants in significant product liability and toxic tort cases. For example, in Charles Lewis v. Door Systems Inc., Patrick represented the family of Charles Lewis, against Door Systems, Inc. and its owners for the wrongful death of Mr. Lewis. In the morning of January 4, 2006, a runaway 2-ton trailer collided head-on into Mr. Lewis' 1999 Ford Explorer and tragically killed him while he was driving by himself in a southerly direction on US 50 Highway. The 2-ton trailer was improperly attached to a 2001 GMC Sierra pickup traveling north, on U.S. 50 Highway. The lawsuit claims that Defendants failed to conduct even a cursory inspection of the trailer and truck prior to operating the vehicle that would have revealed the improper ball and hitch assembly, the improper installation and use of the safety chain, and the unconnected safety cable and electronic braking device on the home made 2-ton trailer.

DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

In April 2013, in Berry et al. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., Case No. 0516-cv-01171 (U.S. Circuit Court Jackson County, Missouri at Independence), the Missouri Supreme Court (No. SC92770) upheld attorney’s fees awarded in the settlement of the case, including the lodestar amount and the use of a multiplier. In June 2010, Patrick as lead counsel in a Missouri state-wide class action against Volkswagen obtained complete relief for the class in a settlement secured 10 days before the multi-week trial. Plaintiffs claim that Volkswagen installed window regulators in the Volkswagen Jetta, Golf, GTI and Cabriolet vehicles, model years 1995-1999, that were defective and thus prone to premature failure and that, instead of fixing these defective parts at no charge to the consumer, Volkswagen made the consumer pay to replace the defective window regulator part. Under the settlement, Volkswagen has agreed to reimburse all expenses incurred by VW owners in the past related to repairing/replacing the defective window regulators plus $75 for each documented incident or workshop visit in which one or more window regulator failures were diagnosed, repaired or replaced. 

In October 2012, a settlement was reached in Mary Plubell, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., Case NO. 04CV235817 (Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri). Patrick brought a Missouri statewide class action on behalf of all Missouri purchasers of Vioxx, the Cox-2 pain reliever that Merck pulled off the market after the FDA identified several misleading sales practices used by Merck to market the product.  The case was removed to Federal District Court for the Western District of Missouri under CAFA after SSH amended the complaint.  Pat argued and won in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals the affirmation of the trial court's remand to state court. The case was certified as a class action. Under the settlement terms, qualifying Missouri consumers of Vioxx may be reimbursed in full for their Vioxx purchases. The common fund settlement provide for payment to class members under two options: (1) a one-time cash payment of $180 to Settlement Class Members who submit a valid claim form with a declaration under oath (but no documentary proof of payment required) and (2) $90 for each month of Vioxx purchases supported by a declaration under oath with documentary proof of payments, such as a letter from the prescribing physician.

In January 2012, Patrick successfully obtained a $2.7 million settlement for Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Intrust Bank and its affiliates for overdraft fees assessed by the bank to their customers.  The case is Molina v. Intrust Bank, N.A., Case No. 10-DV-3686 (District Court, Sedgwick County, Kansas).

In November 2011, a California federal judge approved a $25 million settlement between a class of direct purchasers of automotive lighting products and several manufacturers accused of participating in a wide-ranging price-fixing scheme.  Patrick served as lead counsel.  The case is Aftermarket Automotive Lighting Products Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:09-ml-02007 (U.S. District Court, Central District, California).

In November 2011, Patrick secured a $19 million settlement in a class action lawsuit against Bank of Oklahoma for overdraft fees charged to customers.  The case is Eaton v. Bank of Oklahoma, N.A., Case No. CJ-2010-05209 (District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma).

In May 2011, Patrick successfully negotiated a $7.8 million settlement of a class action lawsuit against UMB Bank and its affiliated entities for overdraft fees charged to customers.  The lawsuit alleged that these practices violated Missouri's consumer protection laws and UMB's contracts with its customers.  The case is Allen et al. v. UMB Bank et al., Case No. 1016-cv-34791 (Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri). 

In April 2011, Patrick secured a nationwide settlement on behalf of over 22,000 dentists and orthodontists who had been decertified by defendant Align Technology, Inc. to prescribe Align's Invisalign braces. The settlement makes available to the class more than $44 million in injunctive relief, along with a nearly $7 million cash settlement fund. The Claims asserted were for unfair and fraudulent business practices under California law. 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 cases. Under the settlement, the entire class will be recertified at no cost to the class members or they can choose a cash settlement. Those orthodontists or dentists who already paid the $2,000 to be reinstated after being decertified will receive full reimbursement under the settlement after paying their pro-rata share of court costs and fees. The case is Leiszler v. Align Technology, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-02010 (U.S. District Court Northern District of California).

Tarina Daily v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, et al., Case No. 04CV218903, Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri: Patrick was lead counsel in this nationwide class action that involved litigation over 4 years in Missouri, Kansas and California and resulted in final court approval of a nationwide class settlement valued at $33,000,000. The case settled claims alleging breach of express and implied warranty and deceptive trade practices arising out of the alleged defective 17 inch rims installed on approximately 350,000 1997-2001 Daimler/Chrysler Avenger and Sebring Coupes and 1997-2002 Mitsubishi Eclipse and Eclipse Spyder vehicles. Stueve Siegel alleged that the 17 inch rims at issue were defectively designed to bend or deform to protect the fragile suspension and frame of the vehicles in question. As a result, Plaintiffs' alleged that the rims would bend during normal use of the vehicles and that Mitsubishi and DaimlerChrysler knew of this defect prior to selling the vehicles. Plaintiffs also alleged that Defendants failed to disclose this information to consumers.

The very contentious litigation was underscored by the fact that two class certification hearings were held in the case. Lead class counsel Patrick Stueve along with Todd Hilton conducted a three day class certification hearing in Johnson County, Kansas and another one day hearing in Orange, County California. Following the California hearing, the Defendants sought a change of Judge which Stueve Siegel objected to and appealed to the California Court of Appeals. A third three day class certification hearing was set in Jackson County, Missouri when the parties reached a settlement that was finally approved by Judge Roldan on October 4, 2005. Defendants were represented by DLA Piper Rudnick, of Baltimore, Maryland and Shook Hardy & Bacon of Kansas City, Missouri. Defendants disputed every element of class certification, contending that individual issues concerning causation of the rim deformation predominated over any common issues underlying the claim. In addition, Defendants identified 5 experts who supported their claim that the wheels in question were not defective and that any deformation in the rims at issue were the result of driver error or poor road conditions.

Notice of the Settlement was mailed to 390,000 class members as well as published in the USA today several times.

Barry Lewin v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., Case No. L-3562 -02, Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County: Patrick was co-lead counsel in a nationwide class action against Volkswagen for defective window regulators installed on nearly 1 million vehicles including 1999-2003 model year VW Golf, GTI and Jetta and 1998-2003 model year VW Beetle. Under the settlement agreement VW agreed to (1) reimburse all expenses incurred by VW owners in the past related to replacing the defective window regulators,(2) install a redesigned metal window regulator replacing any failed window regulators (which used plastic components) under an extended warranty, (3) extend the warranty for all four window regulators at issue to 7 years from the date of the car purchase. The settlement also required VW to direct mail the notice of settlement to nearly 1 million customers as well as publish a summary notice in USA Today and incur all administrative costs in for processing the extended warranty and reimbursement claims. The value of the settlement including the replacement costs and extended warranty could exceed $50,000,000.00.

Patricia Cromwell v. Sprint Communications Company, LP, Case No. 99-2125, U.S. District Court of Kansas: Pat was co-lead counsel in a nationwide class action filed against Sprint seeking reimbursement for thousands of Sprint Customers who had allegedly been overcharged for long distance services. The lawsuit alleged that Sprint improperly charged casual caller rates and/or surcharges (which were generally higher than subscriber rates) for "direct-dialed" long-distance calls. A domestic direct-dialed call is placed by dialing "1," plus the area code, plus the telephone number. An international direct-dialed call is placed by dialing "011," plus the country and city codes, plus the telephone number. Under federal law, Sprint must maintain tariffs or rate schedules that clearly describe how the company will charge for telephone service. Plaintiffs alleged that, in violation of the law, Sprint charged casual caller rates and surcharges for direct-dialed telephone calls. Sprint denied the material factual allegations and legal claims asserted in the lawsuit, including any and all charges of wrongdoing or liability arising out of any of the conduct, statements, acts or omissions alleged, or that could have been alleged, in the suit.

Pat took nearly all of the key Sprint executives' depositions in Kansas, Texas and California as well as represented the putative class in negotiations with Sprint before the Federal Communications Commission. The case was litigated for over 4 years and resulted in a settlement that created a 7.2 million dollar fund allowing affected Sprint subscribers to submit claims for $50 or $100 prepaid calling cards, which for most of the class members was more than they would likely have been overcharged by Sprint.

Powers Law Offices, P.C. v. Cable and Wireless USA, Inc., Case No. 99 CV 12007 EFH: In Powers v. Cable & Wireless, Patrick was co-lead counsel in a case that sought and obtained an order certifying a nationwide class of consumers who were overcharged PICC fees by Cable & Wireless. After obtaining a class certification order, Pat was able to reach a nationwide settlement of $7.7 million for the approximately 40,000 customers who had been wrongfully charged PICC fees.

 

Missouri, 1988

Kansas, 1988

U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri

U.S. District Court District of Kansas

U.S. Court of Appeals 1st Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals 8th Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals 10th Circuit

U.S. Supreme Court

University of Kansas School of Law, Lawrence, Kansas, 1987
J.D.
Honors: Order of the Coif
Law Review: Kansas Law Review and the Criminal Justice Review, Editor

Benedictine College, 1984
B.A.
Honors: With Distinction
Major:  Economics

Best Lawyers® in America - Antitrust Law, Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation - 2014, 2015

Missouri & Kansas Super Lawyers, 2005 - 2013

One of the Finest Commercial Trial Lawyers in the Country - Peers Review

Best of the Bar in Kansas City - Peers Review

Local Litigation Star for the State of Missouri - Benchmark Plaintiffs (2011, 2012, 2013)

AV rated, the Highest Martindale Hubbell

Patrick serves as Treasurer and is a Board member of the Alfred Friendly Press Fellowship Foundation in Washington D.C. that grants 10 fellowships each year to international journalists who come to the United States for five months and work at the leading newspapers in the Country.

Patrick is a member of the Board of Directors of Lawyers Encouraging Academic Performance (LEAP). LEAP was created in 1994 as a not for profit Foundation to further, promote and expand upon existing community service of lawyers in Greater Kansas City with a specific focus upon initiatives intended to encourage young persons in their pursuit of an education.

Patrick serves on the Board of Directors and is the Managing Partners Committee Chair for the Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association (KCMBA).

Patrick is a three-term past President of the Board for Habitat for Humanity Kansas City. In 2000, he was the recipient of the first John and Mary Pritchard Founders Award from Habitat Kansas City.

Patrick is on the Board of Directors of the YMCA of the Rockies in Estes Park, Colorado.

Pat is an active member of Visitation Church.


Professional Organizations

Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers Association

Reflective Insulation Manufacturers Association

Legal Counsel Million Dollar Advocates Forum Member

Lawyers Association of Kansas City Past President

Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association Board Member

KCMBA, Federal Court Advocates Section Executive Committee

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.