Areas of Practice
The Muzilla Law Firm focuses on complex business and tort litigation. The firm handles a broad range of litigation matters, including:
- Class actions
- ERISA litigation
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Product liability
- Professional misconduct
- Shareholder actions
Mr. Muzilla pursues matters before Federal and State Courts, NASD Arbitration, private arbitration, Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, and Ohio Civil Rights Commission.
Mr. Muzilla is national counsel for KTM North America, Inc, the sole distributor of KTM high performance motorcycles and ATVs in North America. Mr. Muzilla represents KTM in matters throughout North America. On behalf of KTM, Mr. Muzilla has been engaged in the defense of product liability claims, dealership issues and various other matters.
The Muzilla Law Firm represents the lead plaintiff in a national class action against certain manufacturers of polyether urethanes, methyl diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and toluene diisocyanate (TDI) for price-fixing and market allocation. To date, Plaintiffs settled with one of the five defendants, obtaining a $55 Million settlement for the class. The case is ongoing with regard to the remaining four defendants. In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, United States District Court for Kansas.
Mr. Muzilla represented a class of approximately 3,000 individuals and 800 businesses with regard to the failure of a health insurance plan to pay for medical bills. The matter was certified as a class action in federal district court. Through the course of the litigation over 40 individuals and entities, who participated in the health insurance plan, were brought in as defendants. Mr. Muzilla obtained a seven figure settlement and paid over 20,000 outstanding medical bills, plus returning 50% funds to the class members who had previously paid the medical bills. Progressive Processing, Inc., et al. v. Schlather Insurance, et al., 92 CV 00904 (N.D. Ohio).
Mr. Muzilla successfully assisted Boston Beer Company and Samuel Adams Brewery Company in the defense of a declaratory judgment claim brought against them by their insurance carrier in federal court. Boston Beer and other liquor manufacturers had been named as defendants in a class action lawsuit seeking damages and injunctive relief for allegedly marketing alcoholic beverages to minors. Boston Beer’s insurance carrier claimed that the insurance policy did not provide a duty to defend and to indemnify for this class action lawsuit. After extensive briefing, the federal court ruled in Boston Beer’s favor, holding that there was a duty to defend under the insurance policy. Royal Ins. Co. v. The Boston Beer Co. Inc., et al, No. 04 CV 2295 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 5, 2007).
Mr. Muzilla represented 20 individuals who made investments through a local, independent investment advisor. In some cases, these individuals placed their entire life savings with the local investment advisor. The investment advisor absconded with some or all of these individuals’ monies. At the start of trial, Mr. Muzilla was able to successfully obtain a favorable settlement with an entity that had a duty to supervise the investment advisor.
Mr. Muzilla represented two business owners who claimed that that a regional accounting firm had committed malpractice in the advice given to them when they sold a portion of their business interest and then in the preparation of their individual tax returns. After lengthy discovery, the matter was favorably resolved to the benefit of Mr. Muzilla’s clients.
Mr. Muzilla successfully defended a local company and its owner from a disability discrimination claim. The plaintiff charged that the company and its owner had created a hostile work environment because of his disability. After a five-day jury trial in federal district court, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the local company and its owner.
Mr. Muzilla successfully protected a trademark that was being improperly used by another company as its domain name. The defendant had purchased a domain name that was the client’s trademark. The use of the trademark as a domain name created substantial confusion in the market place. This litigation was fought initially in two separate federal courts. A successful resolution was achieved with the domain name being transferred to Mr. Muzilla’s client.
Mr. Muzilla successfully represented the Amherst City Council in a dispute with its Law Director. The Law Director filed a lawsuit claiming that he had the authority to retain bond counsel for the City instead of City Council. The City of Amherst retained Mr. Muzilla who obtained a ruling from both the trial court and appellate court that City Council had the authority to choose and retain bond counsel for the City. Amherst v. Dietrich, et al., 97 CA 006920 (Ohio 9th District Court of Appeals, August 12, 1998).
Mr. Muzilla has been successful in both enforcing and breaking non-competition agreements. Recently, Mr. Muzilla assisted a family business to prevent a family member, who was an employee without a non-compete agreement, from opening a competing business. After obtaining a preliminary injunction, an agreement was negotiated that, not only protected the family business, but also allowed the family member to proceed to create his own business without harming the family business.