Representative Experience Archive

Amundsen Davis represents a business involved in a dispute arising from an agreement to purchase commercial real estate in St. Louis County, MO, and in an associated dispute over the refusal to pay rent pursuant to a lease of the same property.

Amundsen Davis represented a major retailer, who was the supplier of protective headgear alleged to be defective, in connection with a workplace accident that resulted in an employee of a manufacturing plant sustaining a significant brain injury.

Amundsen Davis persuaded the Eleventh Circuit that the statute of limitations for class allegations was not tolled by the previous lawsuit against the same defendant and same legal theory.

Amundsen Davis defended an asphalt contractor against a personal injury lawsuit brought by a pedestrian who was struck by a vehicle in the parking lot. 

Amundsen Davis defeated a class certification in a case involving more than 1 million prerecorded calls, on grounds that many absent class members lacked injury under Spokeo.

Amundsen Davis team serves as outside general counsel to an owner-operated freeze dryer company for employment, intellectual property, commercial disputes, contract drafting, contract negotiation, and merger and acquisition related matters.

Amundsen Davis successfully achieved an appeal before the Illinois Appellate Court, which held – for the first time – that a defendant who hired the fax broadcaster was not liable as a matter of law for violations of the TCPA. 

Amundsen Davis's team represents a national RV and outdoor retailer in a myriad of commercial disputes involving allegations relating to breach of warranty, consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices, breach of contract, property damage, and vehicle financing issues.

Sam Fino successfully defended a car wash in small claims court in Will County where a plaintiff was alleging property damage to his Maserati as a result of using the clients business.

Amundsen Davis defended a construction engineering firm against claims alleging negligent design and unjust enrichment. The court granted the engineering firm’s motion to dismiss on one count, with prejudice.