MCZ Development Corp. v. Dickinson Wright, PLLC

2015 WL 7008134 (2015)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

MCZ Development Corp. v. Dickinson Wright, PLLC

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
2015 WL 7008134 (2015)

Facts

Florence Development Partners, LLC (Florence), MCZ Development Corporation, and other entities (collectively, MCZ) (plaintiffs) were developers who retained Dickinson Wright, PLLC (Dickinson) and Dennis J. Whittlesey (defendants) as attorneys to provide assistance with a proposed casino project at a site in Oklahoma. The site was indisputably Indian land, but it was unclear which of two tribes had jurisdiction over the site. In May 2011, MCZ asked Dickinson and Whittlesey whether any issues could prevent the project from successfully moving forward. Dickinson and Whittlesey allegedly assured MCZ that any potential issues would be resolved in MCZ’s favor and that even if the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) issued a negative ruling regarding tribal jurisdiction over the site, that ruling would not prevent the proposed casino from opening and operating. In August 2011, one of the tribes issued Florence a gaming license for the project, and Dickinson and Whittlesey advised MCZ that gaming could be conducted at the site without any further governmental permits or approval. However, in February 2012, the State of Oklahoma sued Florence in federal district court to stop the casino project, asserting that the tribe lacked jurisdiction over the casino site. The district court issued a preliminary injunction against the proposed casino, but the injunction was ultimately vacated on appeal, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. The issue of tribal jurisdiction over the site was not resolved in the Oklahoma litigation. While the appeal was pending, MCZ sued Dickinson and Whittlesey for legal malpractice based on the Oklahoma litigation and a May 2012 memorandum from the NIGC with a preliminary determination that the required tribal jurisdiction over the proposed casino site did not exist. Once the Oklahoma litigation was finalized, Dickinson and Whittlesey moved to dismiss MCZ’s legal-malpractice action, arguing that MCZ had prevailed in the Oklahoma litigation. Dickinson and Whittlesey further asserted that even if they had given MCZ incorrect advice regarding the tribal-jurisdiction issue, they could not be held liable because it was an error in judgment on a matter of unsettled law.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Coleman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership