Illinois Lemon Law Attorneys

Name : Adam J., Krohn

Adam J. Krohn is one of the founding partners of Krohn & Moss, Ltd. 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. Distict Court Northern District of Indiana, The Supreme Court of Illinois and the Supreme Court of Missouri.

Mr. Krohn is a member of the National Association of Consumer Advocates, The National Consumer Law Center and Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety. 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 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 is also a professor of Consumer Law at Chapman University�s School of Law.

Name :Gregory H. Moss

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.

Name : Scott M., Cohen

Scott M. Cohen is a consumer attorney concentrating his practice in breach of warranty, fair debt collection, and consumer fraud actions. 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. 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 and Southern Districts of Illinois and the Northern District of Indiana.
Mr. Cohen has been employed as an attorney at Krohn & Moss, Ltd. since November 1996 and has successfully handled well over two thousand consumer 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 successfully 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 six of the State Supreme Court cases for which he has handled. Mr. Cohen has also argued thirty-three (33) other appeals to Appellate Courts in five (5) different states. More specifically, Mr. Cohen has argued on twenty (20) 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 three (3) occasions before the California Court of Appeals, and on two (2) occasions before the Missouri Court of Appeals. Mr. Cohen has also tried approximately fifteen (15) consumer actions to verdict through jury 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. In doing so, Mr. Cohen also reinstated a jury�s verdict finding that Hyundai Motor America had breached the implied warranty of fitness for Ms. Goodin�s 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, 127 S.Ct. 1156 (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.
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. 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 same 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.
Most recently, on September 20, 2007, Mr. Cohen prevailed again 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 finding that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations since the vehicle at issue was purchased used 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, DaimlerChrysler appealed the matter to the Illinois Supreme 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.
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 twenty (20) appeals currently pending in appellate courts located in Illinois, Indiana, California, Florida, and Ohio. In addition to the approximate twenty (20) appeals that are pending and the State Supreme Court cases detailed above, Mr. Cohen has successfully handled the appeals of the following cases:

• Lara v. Hyundai Motor America, 331 Ill. App. 3d 53; 770 N.E.2d 721 (2nd Dist. Ill. 2002);
• Mrugala v. Fairfield Ford, Inc., 325 Ill. App. 3d 484; 758 N.E.2d 423 (1st Dist. Ill. 2001);
• Dekelaita v. Nissan Motor Corp. 799 N.E.2d 367; 278 Ill. Dec. 649 (1st Dist. Ill. 2003);
• 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);
• Amadi v. Toyota Motor Sales (1st Dist. Ill. 02-2861) Rule 23 order;
• Nilsen v. General Motors Corporation (1st Dist. Ill. 03-0227) Rule 23 order;
• Foy v. Ford Motor Company (1st Dist. Ill. 02-1039) Rule 23 order;
• Smith v. General Motors Corporation (1st Dist. Ill. 98-0251) Rule 23 order;
• Krohn & Moss, Ltd. v. Cinquegrani (1st Dist. Ill. 02-2391) Rule 23 order;
• 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);
• Moeller v. Mercedes Benz of North America (1st Dist. Ill. 02-1358) Rule 23 order;
• 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);
• Mayberry v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 271 Wis.2d 258, 678 N.W.2d 357 (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2004);
• 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);
• Jeffrey Korpalski v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation (1st Dist. Ill. 03-0719) Rule 23 order (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) (petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court denied);
• 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);
• Mangold v. Nissan Motor Corporation, 347 Ill.App.3d 1008, 809 N.E.2d 251 (3rd Dist. Ill. Apr. 30, 2004);
• Razor v. Hyundai Motor America, 2004 Ill. App. LEXIS 703 (1st Dist. Ill. June 16, 2004);
• Peterson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 272 Wis.2d 676, 679 N.W.2d 840 (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2004);
• Dunmore v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation (1st Dist. Ill. 03-0405) Rule 23 order;
• Gervais v. Hyundai Motor America (1st Dist. Ill. 03-0888) Rule 23 order;
• McCarter v. Ford Motor Company (1st Dist. Ill. 03-3153) Rule 23 order;
• Lincourt v. Sesslar Ford, Inc. (1st Dist. Ill. 04-0232) Rule 23 order;
• DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. Franklin, 814 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004);
• Esmurdoc v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, 2004 WL 2347566, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D2343 (Fl. Ct. App. 2004);
• Pinnello v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation (1st Dist. Ill. 03-1371) (consolidated with Fiorenzo v. General Motors Corporation) Rule 23 order;
• Paige v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., 271 Ga.App. 214, 609 S.E.2d 168 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005);
• Hyundai Motor America, Inc. v. Goodin, 822 N.E.2d 947 (Ind. S. Ct. Feb. 22, 2005);
• Brentine v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, 356 Ill.App.3d 760, 826 N.E.2d 1057 (1st Dist. Ill. 2005);
• Craine v. Bill Kay's Downers Grove Nissan, 354 Ill. App. 3d 1023; 822 N.E.2d 941; (2nd Dist. Ill. 2005);
• Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, 846 N.E.2d 126 (1st Dist. Ill. 2005) (modified upon denial of petition for rehearing);
• Edwards v. Hyundai Motor America, 163 S.W.3d 494 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005);
• Zietara v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, 361 Ill.App.3d 819, 838 N.E.2d 76 (1st Dist. Ill. 1995);
• Andreasen v. Hyundai Motor America, 2005 WL 2885621 (Cal. App. 2005);
• Brophy v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 932 So.2d 272 (Fla. App. 2005);
• Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 364 Ill.App.3d 135, 846 N.E.2d 126 (1st Dist. 2005);
• Mattuck v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 366 Ill.App.3d 1026, 852 N.E.2d 485 (1st Dist. 2006);
• Guthrie v. DaimlerChrysler Corp, (1st Dist. Ill. 04-1139 Sept. 8, 2006); Rule 23 order;
• Robles v. American Motor Cars, Inc. (1st Dist. Ill. 04-0635 Nov. 7, 2006); Rule 23 order;
• Shoop v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2007 WL 624092 (1st Dist. 2007);
• Brunner v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2007 WL 1021392 (Cal. Ct. App. April 5, 2007);
• Kirkton v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2008 WL 1947916 (Cal. Ct. App. May 6, 2008).

---

Name :Eric, Kaczander

---

Name : Lee Cassie, Yates

---

Name : Jennifer, Basola

---

Name : Adam T., Hill