Experienced Litigator

Significant Cases Litigated By Albright Law Group

Home Valu Litigation Group

Practice Area: Construction & Development
Date: May 15, 2012

Outcome: Plaintiff litigation group settled claim pursuant to Minnesota Theft by Contractor statute.

Description: A national home center, Home Valu, Inc., failed to pay sub-contract carpet and flooring installers approximately $4.5 million dollars for installation work. The work was performed during the slow demise of Home Valu, Inc. Ultimately, the largest beneficiary of the unpaid money was Home Valu’s lender M&I Business Finance. Because most installers had claims of less than $50,000, they could not economically bring their claims individually. However, Attorney Albright formed a litigation group to bring the claims together in one action against the officers and lender of Home Valu, Inc. Ultimately, the case settled for nearly the face amount of the aggregated claims. It is believed no other Home Valu sub-contractor received payment of its claims.   

Stephen Cardot v. Synesi Group, Inc.

Practice Area: Business Litigation
Date: September 23, 2008

Outcome: Established exception to the law of fraud. A fraud is committed where one makes a statement as to future events not intended or expected to occur.

Description: Stephen Cardot entered into a corporate governance agreement whereby he relinquished operational control of his company to another shareholder. Shareholder promised it would seek outside investment to make the company successful. Cardot alleged, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled, that where one does not actually intend to perform as agreed, the elements of civil fraud are met.

Midwest Fence v. Corey Breault

Practice Area: Construction & Development
Date: September 04, 2009

Outcome: Minnesota court applied Wisconsin Civil Theft Act with the Minnesota Theft by Contractor law and awarded triple damages.

Description: Wisconsin fence installer obtained substantial fence materials from Minnesota supplier, installed them in Wisconsin, was paid by landowner but did not pay Midwest Fence. For the first time, a Minnesota court applied the Wisconsin Civil Theft Act in conjunction with Minnesota Theft by Contractor law and awarded triple damages to unpaid supplier.

Groth Lumber Co, LLC v. Dahl

Practice Area: Debt & Lending Agreements
Date: June 21, 2006

Outcome: Prevailed at trial court and in the Minnesota Court of Appeals

Description: Customer of lumber company sought to assert the defense of usery to avoid payment of revolving account. He claimed 1.5% monthly service charge upon unpaid balance was usurious. The trial court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected that defense and clarified the unsettled law in Minnesota.

Court held: In most instances of accounts where recurring purchases are expected; 1.5% service fee is not usurious under state or federal law.

Midwest Fence v. Koehn, Stamm et al

Practice Area: Construction & Development
Date: August 31, 2009

Outcome: After applying three statutes together, case settled for twice the amount of actual damages together with an award of attorney fees to Plaintiff.

Description: Sub contractor/supplier sued individual owners of construction company for unpaid work on three large construction projects. Court applied Minnesota theft by contractor law together with the Wisconsin Civil Theft Acts. Case subsequently settled for approximately double the amount of actual damages.