|
View/Hide Attorney Description
Scott M. Cohen is a consumer attorney concentrating his practice in breach of warranty and consumer fraud claims. Mr. Cohen earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana in May 1993. He earned his law degree from Ohio Northern University, Pettit College of Law in May 1996. While at Ohio Northern University, Mr. Cohen was an Associate Editor of the Ohio Northern University Law Review.
Mr. Cohen was licensed to practice law by the Supreme Court of Illinois in November 1996 and to the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois in December 1996. In March of 1999, Mr. Cohen was admitted as a member of the Federal Trial Bar. In September of 1999, Mr. Cohen was admitted to the Indiana Bar. In October 2002, Mr. Cohen was admitted to practice before the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and on September 3, 2004, Mr. Cohen was admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Cohen is also admitted to practice before the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Indiana and Southern District of Illinois.
Mr. Cohen has been employed as an attorney at Krohn & Moss, Ltd. since November 1996 and has successfully handled well over two thousand breach of warranty and “lemon law” actions by means of settlement, court ordered arbitration, mediation, trial and appeal. He has briefed and argued countless dispositive motions and appellate briefs regarding matters of significant consumer interest. Notably, Mr. Cohen has argued a total of six (6) cases before State Supreme Courts in addition to one (1) case before the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. He has successfully argued all five (5) of the State Supreme Court cases for which he has already received decisions and is currently waiting on a decision in one (1) pending matter. Mr. Cohen has also argued thirty-one (31) other appeals to Appellate Courts in five (5) different states. More specifically, Mr. Cohen has argued on nineteen (19) occasions before the Illinois Court of Appeals, on four (4) occasions before the Georgia Court of Appeals, on four (4) occasions before the Florida Court of Appeals, on two (2) occasions before the Missouri Court of Appeals, and on two (2) occasions before the California Court of Appeals. Mr. Cohen has also tried approximately fifteen (15) consumer actions to verdict through jury trial and/or bench trial.
In regards to Mr. Cohen’s State Supreme Court victories, in February of 2005, Mr. Cohen prevailed in the first of the six (6) state Supreme Court cases that he has handled. Specifically, Mr. Cohen successfully convinced the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Mayberry v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 692 N.W.2d 226, 2005-1 Trade Cases P 74,710, 2005 WI 13 (Feb. 16, 2005) in a unanimous (7-0) decision to allow a consumer’s claim to proceed for breach of warranty despite the fact that the consumer had traded-in the subject vehicle for more money then it was worth at the time. Furthermore, on February 22, 2005 in Hyundai Motor America, Inc. v. Goodin, 822 N.E.2d 947 (Feb. 22, 2005), Mr. Cohen successfully convinced the Indiana Supreme Court in a unanimous (5-0) decision to abolish the doctrine of privity of contract as a requirement for pursuing an implied warranty action against a car manufacturer pertaining to the fitness of an automobile.
On May 27, 2005, Mr. Cohen prevailed again before the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Peterson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 697 N.W.2d 61 (May 27, 2005) in another unanimous (7-0) decision. In Peterson, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Cohen’s argument that leased vehicles are covered by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Finally, Mr. Cohen recently prevailed before the Illinois Supreme Court in Razor v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., 222 Ill. 2d 75 (2006) certiorari denied by Hyundai Motor America v. Razor, __ S.Ct. __ , 2007 WL 135732, (U.S. Ill. Jan 22, 2007) wherein the Illinois Supreme Court held that Hyundai’s disclaimer of consequential damages, i.e., aggravation and inconvenience and loss of use, was unconscionable and that Ms. Razor should have been allowed to testify to the value of her own automobile in order to establish her diminished value damages. Only two justices dissented in the final opinion, but both judges dissented only as to the denial of the petition for rehearing.
On April 12, 2007, Mr. Cohen prevailed before the Florida Supreme Court in American Honda Motor Company, Inc. v. Cerasani, ___ So. 2d ___, 2007 WL 1074922 (2007) in a unanimous (7-0) decision. Subsequent to Mr. Cohen winning the underlying appeal in Cerasani before the Florida Second District Court of Appeal, Honda appealed the Appellate Court’s finding that leased automobiles are covered by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Florida Supreme Court certified the case as in conflict with Sellers v. Frank Griffin AMC Jeep, Inc., 526 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (finding that the leased vehicle at issue was not covered by the Warranty Act). Relying upon authority from cases successfully handled by Mr. Cohen on this issue, the Florida Supreme Court disapproved Sellers and affirmed the District Court’s opinion holding that leased automobiles are covered by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Additionally, in March of 2007, Mr. Cohen argued Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation in front of the Illinois Supreme Court, the only State Supreme Court case that Mr. Cohen has argued that is currently pending. In Mydlach, DaimlerChrysler appealed the opinion of the Appellate Court finding that the plaintiff’s claims were not barred by the statute of limitations.
Currently, Mr. Cohen manages Krohn & Moss, Ltd.’s Appellate division where he is responsible for all aspects of appeals handled by the firm. At present, he is personally responsible for approximately thirty (30) appeals currently pending in appellate courts located in Illinois, Indiana, California, Florida, and Ohio. In addition to the approximate thirty (30) appeals that are pending and the State Supreme Court cases detailed above, Mr. Cohen has successfully handled the appeals of the following cases:
1) Lara v. Hyundai Motor America, 331 Ill. App. 3d 53; 770 N.E.2d 721 (2nd Dist. Ill. 2002);
2) Mrugala v. Fairfield Ford, Inc., 325 Ill. App. 3d 484; 758 N.E.2d 423 (1st Dist. Ill. 2001);
3) Dekelaita v. Nissan Motor Corp. 799 N.E.2d 367; 278 Ill. Dec. 649 (1st Dist. Ill. 2003);
4) Check v. Clifford Chrysler-Plymouth of Buffalo Grove, Inc., 342 Ill. App. 3d 150; 794 N.E.2d 829 (1st Dist. Ill. 2003) (petition for rehearing and for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court denied);
5) Amadi v. Toyota Motor Sales (1st Dist. Ill. 02-2861) Rule 23 order;
6) Nilsen v. General Motors Corporation (1st Dist. Ill. 03-0227) Rule 23 order;
7) Foy v. Ford Motor Company (1st Dist. Ill. 02-1039) Rule 23 order;
8) Smith v. General Motors Corporation (1st Dist. Ill. 98-0251) Rule 23 order;
9) Krohn & Moss, Ltd. v. Cinquegrani (1st Dist. Ill. 02-2391) Rule 23 order;
10) Diamond v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 14472 (7th Cir 2003) (successfully vacated judgment against plaintiff) (unpublished order of 7th Circuit);
11) Moeller v. Mercedes Benz of North America (1st Dist. Ill. 02-1358) Rule 23 order;
12) Weisberg v. Jaguar Cars, No. 03-3181 (7th Cir. 2004)(successfully reversed district court on appeal pursuant to the granting of Mr. Cohen’s motion for summary disposition);
13) Mayberry v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 271 Wis.2d 258, 678 N.W.2d 357 (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2004);
14) Melton v. Frigidaire and Best Buy, 346 Ill.App.3d 331, 805 N.E.2d 322 (1st Dist. Ill. Feb. 24, 2004) (petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court denied);
15) Jeffrey Korpalski v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation (1st Dist. Ill. 03-0719) Rule 23 order (petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court denied);
16) Mekertichian v. Mercedes Benz USA, 347 Ill.App.3d 828, 807 N.E.2d 1165 (1st Dist. Mar. 31 2004) (petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court denied);
17) Pearson v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, 2004 Ill. App. LEXIS 331 (1st Dist. Ill. Mar. 31 2004) (petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court denied);
18) Mangold v. Nissan Motor Corporation, 347 Ill.App.3d 1008, 809 N.E.2d 251 (3rd Dist. Ill. Apr. 30, 2004);
19) Razor v. Hyundai Motor America, 2004 Ill. App. LEXIS 703 (1st Dist. Ill. June 16, 2004);
20) Peterson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 272 Wis.2d 676, 679 N.W.2d 840 (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2004);
21) Dunmore v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation (1st Dist. Ill. 03-0405) Rule 23 order;
22) Gervais v. Hyundai Motor America (1st Dist. Ill. 03-0888) Rule 23 order;
23) McCarter v. Ford Motor Company (1st Dist. Ill. 03-3153) Rule 23 order;
24) Lincourt v. Sesslar Ford, Inc. (1st Dist. Ill. 04-0232) Rule 23 order;
25) DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. Franklin, 814 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004);
26) Esmurdoc v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, 2004 WL 2347566, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D2343 (Fl. Ct. App. 2004);
27) Pinnello v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation (1st Dist. Ill. 03-1371) (consolidated with Fiorenzo v. General Motors Corporation) Rule 23 order;
28) Paige v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., 271 Ga.App. 214, 609 S.E.2d 168 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005);
29) Hyundai Motor America, Inc. v. Goodin, 822 N.E.2d 947 (Ind. S. Ct. Feb. 22, 2005);
30) Brentine v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, 356 Ill.App.3d 760, 826 N.E.2d 1057 (1st Dist. Ill. 2005);
31) Craine v. Bill Kay's Downers Grove Nissan, 354 Ill. App. 3d 1023; 822 N.E.2d 941; (2nd Dist. Ill. 2005);
32) Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, 846 N.E.2d 126 (1st Dist. Ill. 2005) (modified upon denial of petition for rehearing);
33) Edwards v. Hyundai Motor America, 163 S.W.3d 494 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005);
34) Zietara v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, 361 Ill.App.3d 819, 838 N.E.2d 76 (1st Dist. Ill. 1995);
35) Andreasen v. Hyundai Motor America, 2005 WL 2885621 (Cal. App. 2005);
36) Brophy v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 932 So.2d 272 (Fla. App. 2005);
37) Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 364 Ill.App.3d 135, 846 N.E.2d 126 (1st Dist. 2005);
38) Mattuck v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 366 Ill.App.3d 1026, 852 N.E.2d 485 (1st Dist. 2006);
39) Guthrie v. DaimlerChrysler Corp, (1st Dist. Ill. 04-1139 Sept. 8, 2006); Rule 23 order;
40) Robles v. American Motor Cars, Inc. (1st Dist. Ill. 04-0635 Nov. 7, 2006); Rule 23 order;
41) Shoop v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2007 WL 624092 (1st Dist. 2007); and
42) Brunner v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2007 WL 1021392 (Cal. Ct. App. April 5, 2007).
|