Case Results
August 2024 – Jason Shinn was again selected as a 2023 Super Lawyer for employment law. Super Lawyers selects attorneys using its patented multiphase selection process, which combines peer nominations, evaluations, and independent research. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement.
June 2024 – Before filing a lawsuit involving violations under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), we obtained a very favorable settlement from one of the largest employers in Wayne County on behalf of our client.
February 2024 – After successfully defending against multiple motions for summary disposition in January 2024, and with just weeks before trial, we obtained a highly favorable settlement in a complex multi-party construction and nuisance lawsuit.
December 2023 – Under representation by a different law firm, our clients – a corporation and shareholder – were hit with an arbitration award stemming from employment and Fair Labor Standards Act claims. After this award was issued, we were retained and successfully defended against the arbitration plaintiffs’ attempts to add tens of thousands of dollars to the arbitration award. Mitton v Christian Insurance Group; Case No. 23-05163-CZ (Kent County Circuit Court).
September 2023 – In a federal lawsuit Stryker brought against our client over noncompete and trade secret misappropriation claims (WD Michigan 1:23-cv-00221), we obtained a dismissal order under which our client avoided having to pay fees, costs, or damages to Stryker.
May 2023 – Appeals are normally allowed at the end of case, but we successfully obtained an “interlocutory” appeal on behalf of our clients. The appeal presents several arguments for why the former employee/CFO’s lawsuit should have been dismissed. White v Floor Savers Maintenance & Restoration, Inc., Docket No. 363976.
August 2022 – We got an Order of Contempt in a non-compete lawsuit set aside for our client. The Plaintiff claimed our client violated a non-compete restriction and an injunction order. The initial Judge assigned to the case, granted a limited injunction order and later found it was violated. However, we continued to argue in court filings that the order was wrong because of procedural flaws and erroneous conclusions and it should be and would be reversed on appeal. After Judge Anderson was replaced as an Oakland County Business Court Judge, our arguments and negotiations resulted in Judge Anderson’s replacement entering a stipulated order setting aside the contempt order.