Scott Ruksakiati is the Managing Partner of Tyson & Mendes’ Chicago office. For more than 25 years, he has defended clients in diverse and challenging litigation involving catastrophic injury and death, professional liability, construction defect, breach of contract disputes stemming from multi-million dollar construction projects, transportation litigation and other complex commercial litigation cases throughout the United States. He also has significant experience in insurance coverage matters involving third-party liability and first party property claims.
Mr. Ruksakiati has first-chaired numerous jury trials and commercial arbitration matters to successful conclusions. Most recently, he represented an architect in a case involving serious personal injuries in Cook County, Illinois. After two weeks of trial and after his cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s expert, the case settled for a nominal amount when the trial court refused to rule on a motion for a directed verdict until after the trial. Mr. Ruksakiati also secured an arbitration award in a multi-million construction dispute in which his client was found not guilty and received 100% of its attorneys’ fees. He is known for successfully resolving cases prior to trial or arbitration by developing defenses for winning summary judgment and by positioning cases for favorable resolution through mediation.
Scott Ruksakiati received his undergraduate degree in economics and telecommunications from Indiana University in 1990 and his J.D. from DePaul University in 1993. He is a member of the bars of the State of Illinois, the Northern District of Illinois (general and trial bars), the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the District of Nebraska, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In his spare time, Scott enjoys indoor cycling, puzzling over crosswords, hiking, and golfing.
The Illinois Supreme Court has implemented a change to a rule that has long frustrated Illinois practitioners. Beginning January 1, 2021, orders issued by the Appellate Court under Rule 23 may now be cited in legal briefs as persuasive authority. To understand the significance of the amendment, a bit of history is in order.
During an extended period of COVID-19-related changes to the way businesses operate, and considering the uncertainty of what the situation may be in the coming months, the potential significance of a recent Illinois Supreme Court’s opinion on the issue of whether a home office is sufficient for purposes of establishing venue cannot be overemphasized. Even though the facts of Tabirta v. Cummings, 2020 IL 124798, originated well before COVID-19 surfaced to influence many parts of everyday life, its issuance during the pandemic serves to provide guidance for business owners and defense counsel alike moving forward, especially when so many employees are working from home.
Soon after States began imposing quarantine restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it became readily apparent many businesses would be severely and negatively impacted, perhaps permanently. Certainly, for home improvement and home gardening retailers, both online and brick-and-mortar, 2020 has been a lucrative year. However, other businesses, such as gyms, salons, restaurants, and bars, which rely primarily on patrons visiting their locations in person, have seen catastrophic consequences due to the pandemic. The federal government recognized the devastating effects pandemic-related restrictions would…