Lemon Law Attorneys Profiles Illinois - Your Lemon Law Rights®

Call Now For a FREE Case Review:

1-800-875-3666

First Name:
Adam J. Krohn


Last Name:
Krohn

Email Address:
akrohn@consumerlawcenter.com

Adam J. Krohn is one of the founding partners of Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Consumer Law Center® He has been admitted to practice
law in Illinois, Missouri and before the U.S. Court of Appeals 7th Circuit, the U.S. District Court Central District of
Illinois, the U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois, the U.S. District Court Northern District of Indiana, The
Supreme Court of Illinois and the Supreme Court of Missouri.

Mr. Krohn was chosen as the guest speaker at the Chicago Bar Association’s ‘Consumer Rip-Offs’ seminar held at the Harold
Washington Library. He is also an active member of the YLS Consumer Fraud Sub-Committee and submitted a proposal to the
Committee regarding the Illinois New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act that would enhance state warranty rights.

Mr. Krohn has been featured on CLTV News, Channel 5’s Target 5 News Reports, the Gazette News Service, the Chicago Sun Times
and was featured in The Reader’s 25th Anniversary Celebration issue. He also had one of his jury verdicts reported in the
Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (Bantz vs. Mercedes Benz of North America).

Mr. Krohn has tried to verdict many consumer cases in both state and federal court. In May of 1998, Mr. Krohn obtained a
$78,866.25 sum for his client, Pamela Connor. A federal jury awarded her another $27,166.25 (on a $22,000 vehicle and she
was able to retain ownership of the subject vehicle) and awarded her another $1700 in punitive damages. The trial judge
later awarded an additional $25,000 in punitive damages against Ford Motor Company and Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Consumer Law
Center® settled its attorneys’ fees which Ford Motor Company was required to pay.

Mr. Krohn has also successfully briefed and argued cases before the Seventh Circuit of Illinois in matters which have had
enormous impact on consumers.

Mr. Krohn is a graduate of the University of San Diego School of Law. He was an associate at Daniel Suber & Associates,
and also at Friedman & Olson, Ltd. where he practiced civil litigation. Since 1995, he has devoted his professional
career to fighting for the rights of consumers.

Mr. Krohn was also an Adjunct Professor of Consumer Law at Chapman University School of Law.

First Name :
Gregory H


Last Name :
Moss

Email Address : gmoss@consumerlawcenter.com


Gregory H. Moss is a founding partner of K&M Mr. Moss is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison in May, 1992, with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science
as well as holds a Juris Doctor Degree from the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, Illinois in May, 1995. Mr. Moss is
a member of the Illinois State Bar Association, The Chicago Bar Association and the American Bar Association.

Mr. Moss is also a member of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, the United States District Court for the Western District
of Wisconsin, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Federal Trial Bar and has also
been admitted to practice before the United State Court of Appeals-Seventh Circuit. In addition, in 2007, Mr. Moss was named
an Illinois Super Lawyer by Chicago Magazine.

Mr. Moss was licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois in November of 1995 as well as the State of Wisconsin in April
of 2002 and has handled thousands of warranty law cases and consumer fraud actions. These actions involve all aspects of
litigation including settlement, court ordered arbitration, mediation and trial where he has successfully litigated numerous
bench and jury trials for consumers at both the State and Federal Court level. Mr. Moss has been instrumental with the continued
expansion and success of K&M.

First Name:
Brandi Schueler


Last Name:
Schueler

Email Address:
BSchueler@consumerlawcenter.com

Brandi (Solomon) Schueler is an attorney who focuses on Lemon Law and other consumer rights actions. Ms. Schueler completed
her Bachelor of Arts degree at Illinois State University in 2005. She earned her law degree from The John Marshall Law School
in Chicago in December 2011 while attending as a part time law student and working as a full time law clerk and mother of
two. She was licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois in May 2012.

Since being licensed to practice, Ms. Schueler has focused on Plaintiff?s side litigation, first in Personal Injury/Workers
Compensation and now in consumer rights. She joined Krohn & Moss, Ltd. in April 2015 where she concentrates her practice
in all aspects of consumer litigation.

First Name:
Brandon Loggins


Last Name:
Loggins

Email Address:
bloggins@consumerlawcenter.com

Brandon J. Loggins joined K & M in October 2016 as an associate attorney in the Chicago office working in the Lemon Law/Breach of Warranty/Consumer Fraud department. Mr. Loggins earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana in 2005. Mr. Loggins received the University of Illinois Senior 100 Honorary for the Class of 2005. After graduating from college, Mr. Loggins deferred law school and worked as an educator with Teach For America in the Mississippi River Delta region. Mr. Loggins was recognized as Teacher of the Year.

During his tenure at the University Of Illinois College of Law, Mr. Loggins served as President of the Black Law Student Association and was a member on the Illinois Trial Team. Mr. Loggins advanced as a National Finalist in the American Bar Association First Amendment and Media Law Moot Court Competition. Mr. Loggins received numerous awards for Leadership, Advocacy, and Pro Bono Recognition including being the recipient of the prestigious University of Illinois College of Law Rickert Award for Excellence in Advocacy. Mr. Loggins was an extern for the Honorable Arlander Keys, U.S. Magistrate Judge, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and taught as an adjunct instructor for the University of Illinois College of Law L.L. M program

Mr. Loggins was admitted to practice law in the state of Illinois in May 2012. Mr. Loggins is admitted to practice before the United States Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Prior to joining K & M, Mr. Loggins represented consumers in all stages of civil litigation including extensive motion practice, discovery, settlement negotiations, mediation, and trial. Mr. Loggins successfully briefed and argued a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Mr. Loggins is a professional member of the Illinois State Bar Association, the Chicago Bar Association, and the Cook County Bar Association. Mr. Loggins held a position within the Section of Litigation for the American Bar Association as Co-Editor for the JIOP Newsletter. Mr. Loggins teaches a business legal environment course as an adjunct professor at Trinity International University.

First Name:
Eric Kaczander


Last Name:
Kaczander

Email Address:
ekaczander@consumerlawcenter.com

Eric J. Kaczander is an attorney concentrating his practice in breach of warranty, consumer fraud and employee rights actions.
Mr. Kaczander earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Communication from Michigan State University in May 1999. He earned
his law degree from Arizona State University, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, in May 2004. While at Arizona State University,
Mr. Kaczander was an extern for the Arizona Court of Appeals Staff Attorneys Office.

Mr. Kaczander was licensed to practice law by the Supreme Court of Illinois in 2004, the Supreme Court of Kentucky and Minnesota
in 2011, the Supreme Court of Missouri in 2013 and the Supreme Court of Michigan in 2014. Mr. Kaczander is also admitted
to practice before the United States District Courts for the Northern and Central District of Illinois, Eastern and Western
District of Kentucky, and is a member of the Federal Trial Bar.

Mr. Kaczander has been employed as an attorney at Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Consumer Law Center® since November 2004 and has
successfully handled close to 1,000 consumer actions by means of settlement, court ordered arbitration, mediation, trial
and appeal. He has briefed and argued countless dispositive motions and drafted and argued many appellate issues regarding
matters of significant consumer interest. Mr. Kaczander has tried approximately thirty (30) consumer actions to verdict
through jury and/or bench trials and is the firm’s lead trial attorney for all cases filed in Illinois, Kentucky and Minnesota.
Mr. Kaczander has been selected as an Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star for the year 2014.

First Name:
Scott M. Cohen

Last Name:
Cohen
Email Address:
scohen@consumerlawcenter.com

 
Scott M. Cohen
 

Scott M. Cohen is consumer protection attorney concentrating his practice in lemon law, breach of warranty, and automotive
fraud matters. Mr. Cohen earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana
in 1993 and his Juris Doctor degree from Ohio Northern University, Pettit College of Law in 1996. While at Ohio Northern
University, he was an Associate Editor of the Ohio Northern University Law Review. Mr. Cohen was licensed to practice law
by the State of Illinois in 1996 and the State of Indiana in 1999. He is also admitted to practice before the United States
Supreme Court, the United States Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeal, and the United States District
Courts for the Northern and Central Districts of Illinois, as well as the Northern District of Indiana.

Mr. Cohen joined Krohn & Moss, Ltd. in 1996 and since that time has successfully resolved thousands of consumer actions.
He has an AV Preeminent Rating with Martindale-Hubbell. This rating signifies that Mr. Cohen’s peers rank him at the highest
level of professional excellence for his legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards. Additionally, Mr.
Cohen has a “Superb” rating with Avvo.com, one of the nation’s largest attorney rating and referral services. He was also
the recipient of the Avvo.com Clients’ Choice Award in 2014 – 2017. Mr. Cohen has been recognized in 2015 – 2018 as a “Super
Lawyer” by Thomson Reuters, an honor bestowed to only five (5) percent of practicing attorneys for their excellence in practice.
Chicago Magazine has also identified Mr. Cohen as a “Top Attorney” in the State of Illinois from 2015 – 2018. In 2017, Mr.
Cohen was named by the National Trial Lawyers as a Top 100 Trial Lawyer for the State of Illinois. In April of 2017, American
Registry named Mr. Cohen one of America’s Top 5% Most Honored Professionals for 2017.

As nationwide appellate counsel for Krohn & Moss, Ltd., Mr. Cohen has successfully argued six (6) landmark consumer appeals
before the Supreme Courts of the States of Illinois, Indiana, Florida, and Wisconsin. He has also successfully argued appeals
of significant consumer interest before the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and the appellate courts for
the States of Illinois, California, Missouri, Georgia, and Florida. In total, he has presented oral argument to the above-listed
appellate and state supreme courts on approximately forty (40) occasions and he has prevailed in well over fifty (50) appeals,
including reversing over thirty (30) trial level decisions. Mr. Cohen also has tried approximately fifteen (15) consumer
actions to verdict and has managed dozens of other appeals for Krohn & Moss, Ltd.

In 2005, Mr. Cohen was selected by the Honorable Paddy McNamara of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to be on the
Commercial Litigation Committee of the Chicago Bar Association to draft pattern jury instructions for the federal Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act. Ultimately, pattern jury instructions shaped by Mr. Cohen’s appellate achievements were approved by the Committee
and submitted to the Illinois Supreme Court who adopted the instructions with very minor revisions in January of 2007. See
Ill. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. 185.01. These instructions are believed to be the only Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act pattern
jury instructions in the nation.

Currently, Mr. Cohen co-manages the lemon law litigation department of Krohn & Moss, Ltd. and he manages the firm’s ongoing
appeals. Mr. Cohen’s advocacy continues to pave the way for consumers across the nation to be able to redress their grievances
against some of the nation’s largest corporations. Some of Mr. Cohen’s appellate achievements on behalf of consumers are
summarized below:


STATE SUPREME COURT VICTORIES

Mr. Cohen’s first State Supreme Court victory occurred on February 16, 2005 when he 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 pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act despite the fact that the consumer had
traded-in the subject vehicle for more money than it was worth at the time of trade. The Wisconsin Supreme Court determined
that for a breach of warranty action, damages are measured at the time and place of acceptance, i.e., when originally sold
as “new” as opposed to at some later moment in time. The Court also concluded that layperson testimony from the owner of
a vehicle may form the basis of establishing diminished value damages irrespective of the amount received on trade. The
Court’s decision reversed a previous trial court order dismissing Ms. Mayberry’s action.

Less than one week later, 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, a direct buyer-seller relationship, as a requirement for suing a car manufacturer
regarding the merchantability or fitness of an automobile pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Whereas prior to this
decision a consumer could only pursue a merchantability claim against a car dealer, presuming that the dealer had not disclaimed
the claim in the fine print of the purchase documents, the door was now open to pursue these claims against manufacturers
and distributors of consumer products. Further, the Court’s opinion reinstated Ms. Goodin’s favorable jury verdict and reversed
the Appellate Court for taking away the verdict.

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 a 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 in contravention to a New York high court decision
from 2002, DiCintio v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 97 N.Y.2d 463, 742 N.Y.S.2d 182, 768 N.E.2d 1121 (2002). The Court noted that
the reasoning of the authorities relied upon by Mr. Cohen, mainly other cases in which he had prevailed on this same issue,
was more congruent with the plain meaning of the pertinent provisions of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act than the analysis
employed by the New York high court in DiCintio. The Court’s decision reversed a previous trial court order dismissing Ms.
Peterson’s action.

On December 7, 2005, Mr. Cohen successfully convinced the Indiana Supreme Court in

Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Yaeger
, 838 N.E.2d 449, 449-50 (Ind. 2005) to dismiss an appeal brought by Chrysler. After the trial court denied Chrysler’s motion
to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint and compel arbitration, Chrysler brought an interlocutory appeal without first seeking
trial court certification. Mr. Cohen filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, which a majority of a panel of the Court of Appeals
denied, holding that it had discretion to address the appeal under Indiana Appellate Rule 66(B). The Indiana Supreme Court
granted transfer and reversed the Appellate Court finding that the Indiana Appellate did not authorize Chrysler’s interlocutory
appeal.

Mr. Cohen then prevailed on June 29, 2006 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, 127 S.Ct. 1156 (2007). In Razor, the Illinois
Supreme Court held that Hyundai’s disclaimer of consequential damages, i.e., aggravation and inconvenience and loss of use,
was unconscionable thus allowing a consumer access to these damages despite the fine print in Hyundai’s warranty provided
after the purchase transaction was consummated. The Court also held that Ms. Razor, a layperson, should have been allowed
to testify to the value of her own automobile in order to establish her diminished value damages at the time she originally
purchased her automobile pursuant to her claim for breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

On April 12, 2007, Mr. Cohen prevailed before the Florida Supreme Court in

American Honda Motor Company, Inc. v. Cerasani
, 955 So.2d 543 (Fl. 2007) in a unanimous (7-0) decision. In Cerasani, Honda appealed to the Florida Supreme Court after
Mr. Cohen had prevailed at the appellate level and reversed the trial court’s order dismissing the consumer’s breach of
warranty claims. The Florida Supreme Court certified the appellate level decision as being 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) and agreed to hear the case. Relying upon authority from cases successfully handled by Mr. Cohen on this
same issue, including Peterson listed above, the Florida Supreme Court disapproved Sellers and affirmed the District Court
of Appeal’s decision that leased automobiles are covered by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

On September 20, 2007, Mr. Cohen prevailed a second time before the Illinois Supreme Court in

Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation
, 875 N.E.2d 1047. In Mydlach, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s breach of warranty action brought pursuant to the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act finding that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations since the vehicle at issue, purchased
used by Ms. Mydlach, was originally sold as “new” more than four (4) years from the date the plaintiff filed suit against
DaimlerChrysler. After Mr. Cohen prevailed on appeal before the Illinois Appellate Court, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed
the Appellate Court’s reversal of the trial court’s dismissal order. While the Illinois Supreme Court did find that a “used”
car purchaser could not revoke acceptance of the vehicle against DaimlerChrysler, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the
plaintiff’s breach of warranty claim was not barred by the statute of limitations and that the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act provided an independent cause of action for the plaintiff to pursue a claim for monetary damages against DaimlerChrysler.
The Illinois Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the statute of limitations for a breach of warranty could not begin
to toll until there was at least a failure on the part of the warrantor to comply with its obligations to repair.


APPELLATE COURT DECISIONS

Mr. Cohen has also successfully handled the following appeals:


  • Mrugala v. Fairfield Ford, Inc.
    , 325 Ill. App. 3d 484; 758 N.E.2d 423 (1st Dist. Ill. 2001) (trial court order requiring return of subject vehicle despite
    fact only a diminished value recovery was sought was reversed and consumer was entitled to retain possession of his vehicle
    and damages under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Action);

  • Lara v. Hyundai Motor America
    , 331 Ill. App. 3d 53; 770 N.E.2d 721 (2nd Dist. Ill. 2002) (trial court’s dismissal of action due to repossession of vehicle
    reversed in this breach of warranty action under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act);

  • Dekelaita v. Nissan Motor Corp.
    , 799 N.E.2d 367; 278 Ill. Dec. 649 (1st Dist. Ill. 2003) (trial court’s dismissal of Magnuson-Moss action due to the subject
    vehicle being leased reversed on appeal);

  • Check v. Clifford Chrysler-Plymouth of Buffalo Grove, Inc.
    , 342 Ill. App. 3d 150; 794 N.E.2d 829 (1st Dist. Ill. 2003) (judgment in favor of consumer following jury trial in consumer
    fraud and breach of implied warranty action under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act affirmed on appeal) (petition for rehearing
    and for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court denied);

  • Mayberry v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
    , 271 Wis.2d 258, 678 N.W.2d 357 (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2004) (reversed trial court’s dismissal of action under Magnuson-Moss
    Warranty Act finding that that the consumer had sustained damages despite trading-in the subject vehicle for more money
    than its value at the time of trade);

  • Melton v. Frigidaire and Best Buy
    , 346 Ill.App.3d 331, 805 N.E.2d 322 (1st Dist. Ill. Feb. 24, 2004) (attorneys’ fee award under Magnuson-Moss Warranty
    Act affirmed on appeal); (petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court denied);

  • Mekertichian v. Mercedes Benz USA
    , 347 Ill.App.3d 828, 807 N.E.2d 1165 (1st Dist. Mar. 31 2004) (affirmed trial court’s denial of motion to dismiss implied
    warranty action pursuant to Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act finding that doctrine of privity of contract was not a bar to pursue
    implied warranty action); (petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court denied);

  • Pearson and Zenari v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation
    , 813 N.E.2d 230 (1st Dist. Ill. Mar. 31 2004); (trial court’s dismissal of two actions under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
    due to fact subject vehicles were fixed was reversed in this consolidated appeal with the court finding that an issue of
    fact existed as to whether the vehicles were fixed within a reasonable number of attempts) (petition for leave to appeal
    to the Illinois Supreme Court denied);

  • Mangold v. Nissan Motor Corporation
    , 347 Ill.App.3d 1008, 809 N.E.2d 251 (3rd Dist. Ill. Apr. 30, 2004) (lessees have standing to pursue Magnuson-Moss action);

  • Peterson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
    , 272 Wis.2d 676, 679 N.W.2d 840 (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2004); (reversed trial court for dismissing Magnuson-Moss action
    solely because subject vehicle was leased);

  • DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. Franklin
    , 814 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (affirmed judgment on jury’s verdict finding that plaintiff had not consented to
    resolve his Magnuson-Moss claims through binding arbitration);

  • Esmurdoc v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation
    , 2004 WL 2347566, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D2343 (Fl. Ct. App. 2004) (reversed trial court’s dismissal of action finding that
    plaintiff did not consent to arbitrate her Magnuson-Moss claims with Chrysler);

  • Paige v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc.
    , 271 Ga.App. 214, 609 S.E.2d 168 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) (reversed trial court for dismissing Magnuson-Moss action due to
    fact plaintiff allegedly did not participate in informal dispute resolution in good faith);

  • Brentine v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation
    , 356 Ill.App.3d 760, 826 N.E.2d 1057 (1st Dist. Ill. 2005) (trial court’s order upholding settlement agreement in Magnuson-Moss
    action affirmed on appeal);

  • Craine v. Bill Kay’s Downers Grove Nissan
    , 354 Ill. App. 3d 1023; 822 N.E.2d 941 (2nd Dist. Ill. 2005) (trial court’s order finding that consumer’s claims were
    not subject to binding arbitration affirmed on appeal);

  • Edwards v. Hyundai Motor America
    , 163 S.W.3d 494 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005) (trial court order dismissing Magnuson-Moss action on statute of limitations grounds
    reversed on appeal);

  • Zietara v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation
    , 361 Ill.App.3d 819, 838 N.E.2d 76 (1st Dist. Ill. 2005) (trial court order debarring consumer from rejecting arbitration
    award in Magnuson-Moss action reversed on appeal);

  • Andreasen v. Hyundai Motor America
    , 2005 WL 2885621 (Cal. App. 2005) (order limiting award of attorneys’ fees to consumer to a percentage of the underlying
    recovery in a Magnuson-Moss action reversed on appeal);

  • Brophy v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
    , 932 So.2d 272 (Fla. App. 2005) (trial court order dismissing Magnuson-Moss action because subject vehicle was leased
    reversed on appeal);

  • O’Connor v. BMW of North America, LLC
    , 905 So. 2d 235 (Fla. App. 2005) (trial court entry of summary judgment in favor of BMW on Magnuson-Moss action because
    subject vehicle was leased reversed on appeal);

  • Cerasani v. American Honda Motor Co.
    , 916 So. 2d 843 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (reversed order of trial court improperly dismissing Magnuson-Moss action,
    because subject vehicle was leased);

  • Mattuck v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
    , 366 Ill.App.3d 1026, 852 N.E.2d 485 (1st Dist. 2006) (judgment on jury’s verdict pursuant to Magnuson-Moss action, including
    determination of damages based on testimony of Plaintiff’s mechanical expert Thomas Walters, affirmed on appeal);

  • Shoop v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
    , 864 N.E.2d 785 (1st Dist. 2007) (entry of summary judgment in Magnuson-Moss action in favor of Defendant on issue of
    damages based, in part, on the testimony of Thomas Walters reversed on appeal);

  • Brunner v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
    , 2007 WL 1021392 (Cal. Ct. App. April 5, 2007) (judgment on jury’s verdict in Magnuson-Moss action affirmed on appeal
    where court rejected Chrysler’s contention that layperson testimony on damages alone was insufficient to support verdict);

  • Sawyer v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
    , 2007 WL 2070458 (Cal. Ct. App. July 20, 2007) (judgment on verdict in favor of consumer affirmed on appeal where court
    rejected Mercedes-Benz contention that there was not substantial evidence to support the verdict, because the testimony
    at trial regarding the diminution in value lacked foundation).

  • San Martin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
    , 983 So. 2d 620 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (trial court’s denial of attorneys’ fees in Magnuson-Moss action finding consumer
    was not the prevailing party after accepting Chrysler’s Offer of Judgment reversed on appeal);

  • Kirkton v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
    , 2008 WL 1947916 (Cal. Ct. App. May 6, 2008) (judgment on jury’s verdict in Magnuson-Moss action affirmed on appeal where
    court rejected Chrysler’s contention that layperson testimony on damages alone was insufficient to support verdict);

  • Jones v. Nissan North America, Inc.
    , 385 Ill. App. 3d 740, 895 N.E.2d 303 (2d. Dist. Sept. 11, 2008) (trial court’s dismissal of Magnuson-Moss action due
    to consumer’s ineligibility to participate in informal dispute resolution after disposal of subject vehicle reversed on
    appeal); and

  • Hanson-Suminski v. Rohrman Midwest Motors, Inc.
    , 386 Ill. App. 3d 585, 898 N.E.2d 194 (1st Dist. Nov. 7, 2008) (judgment on consumer fraud verdict affirmed on appeal).
First Name:
Brent Wikgren


Last Name:
Wikgren

Email Address:
bwikgren@consumerlawcenter.com

Mr. Wikgren joined Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Consumer Law Center® in 2010, concentrating his practice in the areas of breach
of warranty and lemon law litigation.  Mr. Wikgren earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in History with honors from Western
Illinois University in May of 2004.  He earned his Juris Doctor from University of Miami (FL) School of Law in May
of 2007.  He was admitted to the Florida bar in 2007 and the Illinois Bar in 2008.  He is also licensed to practice
before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

As a dual licensed attorney, Mr. Wikgren handles consumer complaints throughout the States of Illinois and Florida.
Mr. Wikgren is responsible for all aspects of litigation for Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Consumer Law Center® and is currently
the Managing Attorney of the firm’s Florida department.

Prior to joining Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Consumer Law Center® Mr. Wikgren concentrated his practice in the areas of commercial
litigation and immigration, while working at AzulaySeiden Law Group, in Chicago.  Before that, Mr. Wikgren practiced
corporate law with Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen and Loewy, LLP in Miami, Florida.  Mr. Wikgren has extensive deposition
and motion practice experience, jury and bench trial experience, and has been lead counsel in numerous binding and non-binding
arbitrations throughout Florida and Illinois.

First Name:
Nicholas Lacina


Last Name:
Lacina

Email Address:
nlacina@consumerlawcenter.com

Mr. Lacina joined Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Consumer Law Center® in October 2013, concentrating his practice in the areas of
breach of warranty and lemon law litigation. Mr. Lacina earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science with a focus
in International Relations as well as his Certificate in Business Entrepreneurship from the University of Iowa. He went
on to receive his Juris Doctor from the University of Iowa College of Law in May 2011. He was admitted to the Florida Bar
in October 2011 and the Illinois Bar in July 2013.

Prior to joining Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Consumer Law Center®, Mr. Lacina concentrated his practice in criminal prosecution
and worked as an Assistant State Attorney in Miami-Dade County for several years. Mr. Lacina has extensive litigation experience,
including numerous jury trials, daily court hearings, motion practice, and depositions.

First Name:
Jennifer Basola

Last Name:
Basola

Email Address:
jbasola@consumerlawcenter.com

Ms. Basola received her undergraduate degree in Business Administration/Marketing from Bradley University in 1994. In addition,
she attended the University of Copenhagen in Copenhagen, Denmark and completed its International Business program. Ms. Basola
attended The John Marshall law School in Chicago, Illinois and received her Juris Doctor degree in 1999.

Ms. Basola was licensed to practice law in Illinois in 1999, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
in 2000. She received her license to practice law in California in 2004 and is also admitted in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California. Ms. Basola is a member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association.

Ms. Basola has been employed with Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Consumer Law Center® since December 2001. During her employment
with Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Consumer Law Center®, she has represented thousands of consumers in California and Illinois
in Lemon Law, breach of warranty and fraud claims. She has represented consumers in hundreds of arbitrations and mediations
and has been first-chair in approximately 25 jury trials.

Ms. Basola has also prepared appellate court briefs in both Illinois and California and has argued before the California
Court of Appeals in a breach of warranty case.

Prior to her employment at Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Consumer Law Center®, Ms. Basola was employed by a Chicago law firm from
May 2000 through December 2001, handling compliance work and residential real estate claims and from May of 1999 through
May of 2000, Ms. Basola litigated over 60 arbitrations and 10 jury trials while employed by a personal injury firm in Chicago,
Illinois.

First Name:
John D. Barker


Last Name: Barker

Email Address:
jbarker@consumerlawcenter.com

John Barker has been licensed as an attorney since 2001 and has devoted his career to helping consumers since he was first
admitted to practice. He earned his Juris Doctor degree from Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis where he was
awarded Order of Barristers. Currently, Mr. Barker is licensed in the states of Indiana, Illinois, California, Texas, Missouri,
and is licensed in the Federal District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana, the Central, Eastern
and Southern District of California as well as the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Barker is one of K&M’s senior
attorneys specializing in consumer actions. Mr. Barker devotes all of his time to representing consumers. He has extensive
experience in all aspects of litigating a client’s case including motion practice, mediation, settlement, court ordered
arbitration, depositions, trial, and appeal. During his tenure at K&M, Mr. Barker, successfully represented a consumer
in front of the Indiana Supreme Court in the case of Hyundai Motor America v. Sandra Goodin, 822 N.E.2d 947 (Ind. 2005)
changing the landscape of consumer protection for Indiana consumers. In addition, he has tried over thirty-five (35) trials
to verdict through jury and bench trial, handled numerous mediations, argued dispositive motions, arbitrated approximately
ten (10) breach of warranty cases in the Cook County, Illinois Mandatory Arbitration Program, and is responsible for all
aspects of client files.

  • CARFAX Vehicle History Reports
Free Case Review Call Us Now