Business Disputes

Doerr Design.jpg

Business Lawsuits

Business lawsuits, also known as commercial litigation, involve virtually every type of dispute that can arise in a business context, but it usually involves a business relationship or contract gone bad.

If a lawsuit has been filed, the complaint may include claims of breach of contract, fraud, tortious interference with a contract or business relationship, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion (stealing), account stated, and many others causes of action.  Both individuals and businesses can be involved.

 

If your business was just sued, click here

Mr. Doerr represents individuals and businesses of various sizes, from small businesses to Fortune 500 companies.  He represents both plaintiffs and defendants.  Although Doerr Law Firm is a small law firm, Mr. Doerr frequently takes on Michigan's largest law firms with success.  In 2020, Super Lawyers identified Mr. Doerr as a Top 100 attorney in Michigan for business litigation.  He is also the current Co-Chair of the Oakland County Bar Association's Business Court Committee.

Here are examples of business disputes handled by Mr. Doerr:​

 

  • Hamood v. ZenMuse, LLC, 2020 WL 5739690 (Mich. App. 2020)​​

    • The Michigan Court of Appeals described this case as "the product of a contentious dispute between Nathan Alexander Hamood, Jamal John Hamood, Anita Baker, and ZenMuse LLC (ZenMuse), a limited liability company that was created by Baker, who is its president and sole shareholder."  In the trial court, plaintiff obtained a $165,014 default judgment against ZenMuse.  Almost a year later, ZenMuse filed a motion to set aside the default judgment pursuant to MCR 2.612(B), "Defendant Not Personally Notified."  The trial court denied the motion, finding that ZenMuse was properly served.  The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding "because personal jurisdiction over ZenMuse was necessary and acquired, because ZenMuse (via Baker) has asserted without contradiction that it had no knowledge of this lawsuit, because ZenMuse entered an appearance within one year of the final judgment, because ZenMuse has demonstrated meritorious defenses to both of Nathan's claims as currently pleaded, and because there has been no showing that setting aside the default judgment will prejudice any innocent third parties, ZenMuse satisfied all five elements to be entitled to relief from judgment pursuant to MCR 2.612(B)." 

  • Complex Landlord-Tenant Dispute​ (2019)

    • A commercial tenant filed a 13-count complaint against a landlord seeking over $130,000.  Doerr Law Firm represented the defendant landlord. After filing counterclaims and several dispositive motions,  Mr. Doerr obtained orders dismissing all 13 claims and a judgment against the tenant exceeding $200,000.​

  • Setting Aside Default Judgment (2018)

    • Plaintiff​ obtained a six figure default judgment against a business and its guarantor.   Doerr Law Firm successfully set aside the judgment and negotiated a settlement reducing payments by over $100,000.

  • J-Bob LLC v. Mike's Garage / LaRocca's Towing, LLC​, 2017 WL 395288 (E.D. Mich. 2017)​​​​​

    • Successful defense of a lawsuit filed by parties claiming a towing company wrongfully converted and acquired title to a motorhome valued at $350,000.  The plaintiffs asserted claims of conversion, replevin, fraud, and abuse of process, seeking treble damages exceeding $1 million.  In lieu of answering the complaint, Doerr Law Firm, on behalf of the company, filed a motion to dismiss.  In the motion, the company argued that Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was governed by Michigan’s abandonment statute, MCL § 257.252a, et al, which the plaintiffs failed to honor.  The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan agreed, finding that parties could not circumvent Michigan’s statutory scheme by putting different labels on their claims.  The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.

  • Oxford Inv. Group v. Fourslides, Inc., 2012 WL 2913616 (Mich. App. 2012)

    • The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed a decision by the Oakland County Circuit Court finding various companies liable on a breach of a contract claim seeking over $1 million in damages. The courts rejected the companies’ argument that the transaction documents were ambiguous because they were not specifically identified in the documents.