Davis & Kuelthau - Commercial Litigation

Commercial Litigation

Disputes that affect your business are the domain of our Commercial Litigation practice group. Whether the situation involves a breach of contract, business fraud, products liability or any one of the many sources of conflict between a business and its customers, suppliers, competitors, insurers, partners or employees, our litigation group helps clients anticipate, avoid, resolve and win legal claims.

Our litigators have successfully handled hundreds of trials in front of juries, judges, arbitrators, mediators, and administrative tribunals, at all levels of the court system from circuit court through appeals and supreme courts and in numerous jurisdictions including local, state, federal, and international. Just as importantly, we have frequently spared clients the costs and uncertainties of trial by achieving dismissals, summary judgments or settlements through creative and scholarly presentation of legal arguments.

Our clients range from closely-held businesses to multi-national corporations, financial institutions, municipalities and municipal entities, school districts, entrepreneurs, other professionals, and non-profit organizations.

Areas of conflict we handle

Breach of contract
Fraud
Regulatory compliance disputes
Anti-Trust and fair trade matters
Unfair competition issues
Local, state and federal environmental disputes
Professional liability
Wrongful employment conduct, including embezzlement schemes, use of confidential information, theft of trade secrets and violation of non-competition agreements
Shareholder and partner disputes
Securities violations
Creditors’ rights

Three fundamental pillars of service

Business First. We recognize that every legal dispute poses its own unique business issues, objectives, priorities and opportunities. Public reputation and image, competitive advantage, financial status and economic impact are among the many of the factors at stake. Our first step in any litigation matter is to work with our client to identify the business interests and objectives implicated by the dispute. We then devise, and continually reassess, our litigation strategy in light of the interests and objectives identified.
Uncompromised Client Service. We provide clients with prompt, attentive, aggressive and zealous advocacy. We develop a communications plan early so that any and all affected client representatives are frequently advised and consulted on all litigation activities. Our intermediate size provides unique opportunities to provide the very best and most efficient blend of experience, substantive know-how, and collaborative thinking while at the same time, availing our clients to reasonable rates and priority service.
Efficient Use of Personnel and Technology. We frequently draw on the extensive experience of the Firm’s transactional lawyers from other practice groups who are well-versed in underlying business issues, like tax, mergers and acquisitions, real estate, employee benefits and intellectual property. Our efforts are further supported by state-of-the-art technology, including electronic document management, computer-aided presentation systems, and the latest in electronic discovery methods. It is our goal to staff matters leanly and efficiently to provide the best value of service to our client, with minimal overhead.

If you would like more information regarding our Commercial Litigation services, please contact Kathy Nusslock at 414.225.1447 or knusslock@dkattorneys.com.

Attorneys' Notable Representations

James E. Braza

Jim represented the public owner of a major league baseball stadium in a circuit court lawsuit involving over $100,000,000 of damages claimed by a retractable roof contractor. After obtaining partial summary judgment, dismissing substantial portions of the contractor’s claims, he negotiated a settlement resulting in payments of more than $30 million to owner.
James E. Braza

Jim obtained a no liability jury verdict in favor of financial institution sued by real estate developer for lender liability.
James Culhane

Jim represented a real estate services company that was sued by an officer of a large theatre venue claiming all sorts of wrongdoing. There was significant publicity surrounding the case. Jim asked the insurer of the real estate services company to defend against the claim, but the insurer refused. However, he successfully defended the company in the underlying case and then sued the insurer for breaching its duty to defend. He won the coverage issues at the trial court level, at the Court of Appeals level and also at the Wisconsin Supreme Court level, and was able to force the insurer to not only reimburse the company for the attorney fees it incurred in defending the underlying case, but also the attorney fees it incurred in prosecuting the insurance coverage claim. The victory changed Wisconsin law by requiring insurance companies to bear the burden when they fail to clearly communicate with their insureds. The case also set a new rule as to what constitutes a “tender of defense,”making it much easier for insureds to require their insurance company to cover the claim.
Russell S. Long

Rusty recently completed a number of commercial foreclosures on various real estate developments for M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank in connection with a $100 million credit to Heritage Development.
Susan G. Schellinger

Sue, along with two of her partners, defended a manufacturer against a $50 million claim by its foreign partner for breach of a joint venture agreement. The representation was a significant success in several regards: Sue was able to obtain full coverage for all of the client’s defense costs under a Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy, and after a week-long arbitration in Dallas before the International Chamber of Commerce, all claims against the client were dismissed, and an award was entered in favor of the client on its counterclaim.
Kevin J. Lyons

Recently, Kevin has represented Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District at trial, and continues his representation on appeal and a state court dispute with Bostco LLC over whether Milwaukee’s sewerage damaged the Boston Store building in downtown Milwaukee.
Tara M. Mathison

Tara worked with several other attorneys while representing a client in a multi-million dollar dispute with its foreign venture partner which demanded over $50 million for breach of a joint venture agreement. In addition to assisting with the client's defense, Tara also negotiated full coverage for all defense costs incurred by the client under a Commercial General Liability policy, notwithstanding the fact the partner’s claims sounded primarily in contract. All claims against the client were dismissed, and an award was entered in favor of the client on its counterclaim.
James E. Braza

After an eight week jury trial, Jim obtained a no liability jury verdict on behalf of a subcontractor who provided the prefabricated curtain wall panels for a twenty-two story residential condominium project, which involved claims for water infiltration arising from defective design and construction.
William J. Mulligan

Bill defended the president of a road building contractor in a federal criminal antitrust prosecution in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green Bay Division, of a bid-rigging conspiracy on federal and state funded construction projects among road building contractors including related debarment proceedings and restitution claims.
Susan G. Schellinger

Sue defended a high-level executive in a dispute brought by his former employer, a Fortune 500 company, for breach of a non-compete agreement and violation of the trade secret statutes. Sue was able to fend off a preliminary injunction motion brought by the former employer seeking to enjoin the executive’s employment with his new employer. The denial of the motion gave the executive significant leverage to negotiate a favorable resolution which allowed him to accept employment with the former employer's prime competitor. She has also enforced non-competes and intellectual property rights of business owners against former employees.
Heather K. Gatewood

Heather recently defended a lawsuit filed in Kansas federal court against her client by a large national railroad. The client sustained nearly $1 million in damages after a freight train derailed and crashed into the client's plant, but the railroad claimed the client caused the derailment and sought millions in damages. Heather helped to successfully settle the case through extensive negotiations with the client's insurer and the opposing parties.
Kathy Nusslock

In a state private putative direct antitrust class action alleging a conspiracy to fix prices based on Wisconsin’s “Little Sherman Act” by pharmaceutical companies concerning the then patented prescription drug Cipro®, Kathy represents one of the pharmaceutical companies and is participating in the successful efforts to obtain a dismissal of the action based on the applicability of Wisconsin’s law on an alleged interstate conspiracy and then on appeal in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and Wisconsin Supreme Court. The action was remanded to the Circuit Court, where it was again dismissed by agreement of the parties.
Thomas L. Schober

Currently, Tom is representing the City of Green Bay in a contract dispute over the redevelopment of downtown.
Kathy Nusslock

Along with one of her tax partners, Kathy successfully resolved disputed tax claims for several clients and obtained a significant refund from the government.
Mark F. Yokom

Mark successfully defended a mid-size company in a commercial contract dispute by obtaining a dismissal of the case based on motions filed before trial.
Kathy Nusslock

Kathy, along with three of her partners, defended a manufacturer against a $50 million claim by its foreign partner for breach of a joint venture agreement. The representation was a significant success: after a week-long arbitration hearing before the International Chamber of Commerce, all claims against the client were dismissed and an award was entered in favor of the client on its counterclaim.