John E. Bucheit

Background

John Bucheit has extensive experience litigating complex commercial disputes and employment-related matters throughout the country, representing a wide range of clients in some of their most complex and high stakes litigation. The matters Mr. Bucheit handles for clients often involve unique issues of first impression that require creative and innovative solutions. In one case, for example, he helped a client obtain following a three-month bench trial and appeal a victory that commentators called a “landmark” decision. As trial counsel in another matter, Mr. Bucheit helped secure a jury verdict for his client that was described as “the first of its kind.”     

Mr. Bucheit practices out of the firm’s Chicago office. In addition to handling matters throughout Illinois, Mr. Bucheit has litigated cases in numerous state and federal courts throughout the country, including in New York, California, Florida, Washington, Michigan, Texas, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Maryland and the District of Columbia. He is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Seventh Circuit, Ninth Circuit, Fourth Circuit, and Sixth Circuit, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Trial Bar) and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Assistant: Stacey
Assistant's Phone: 319-861-8708
Assistant Email: ssnead@bradleyriley.com

Bar Admissions

• Illinois State Courts
• State of Illinois
• United States Supreme Court
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Trial Bar)
• U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Recognition

• Selected to Illinois Super Lawyers® for Business Litigation 2015-2019

Professional and Community Affiliations

• American Bar Association
• Chicago Bar Association

Professional Experience

• Joined Bradley Riley Jacobs PC in 2019
• Roeser Bucheit & Graham LLC, Chicago, Illinois, 2010-2018
• Grippo & Elden LLC, Chicago, Illinois, 2001-2010
• Winston & Strawn LLP, 1998-2001

Significant Cases

• Currently representing an international insurance company with respect to coverage issues involving thousands of sexual abuse claims asserted against several policyholders, with cases pending in state and federal courts in California, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio and Texas.
• Currently representing same insurance company in multiple coverage litigations regarding underlying claims alleging environmental contamination and asbestos-related bodily injury.
• Trial counsel for Fortune 100 client in on-line marketing litigation in the U.S. District Court of Maryland, obtaining jury verdict in client’s favor following a two-week jury trial Brand Systems, Inc. v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 972 F.Supp.2d 748 (D. Md. 2013), aff’d, 777 F.3d 712 (4th Cir. 2015). Legal commentators described the trial as “the first of its kind.”
• Obtained summary judgment and award of attorneys’ fees against EEOC on behalf of minority-owned janitorial services and management consulting companies in EEOC enforcement action alleging national origin discrimination on behalf of class of current and former employees. EEOC v. RJB Properties, Inc., 847 F.Supp.2d 727 (N.D. Ill. 2012).
• Trial counsel in New York state court class-action litigation pertaining to purported “non-products” coverage for asbestos-related exposure alleged to be in excess of $1 billion.  Obtained declaratory judgment of no coverage in client’s favor following a three-month bench trial of no coverage in client’s favor following four-month bench trial and appeal.  Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau et al., 871 N.Y.S.2d 48 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. 2008). Opponents and the press described this as a “landmark” decision on the “non-products” issue.
• Represented global law firm in an EEOC enforcement action alleging age-discrimination on behalf of purported class of 32 former partners.  EEOC v. Sidley Austin LLP, 437 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2006).
• Represented players’ association in labor arbitration over performance criteria used in salary arbitrations, obtaining in client’s favor arbitration award based on argument of first impression.  Represented same client in anti-trust suit against Canadian developmental league.  See NHLPA v. Plymouth Whalers Hockey Club, et al., 325 F.3d 712 (6th Cir. 2003); 419 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2005).
• Obtained summary judgment on behalf of national law firm based on argument of first impression.  See Inductametals Corp. v. Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC, 2004 WL 783129 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2004).
• Counsel for internet media delivery provider in defense of several consumer class-actions related to online-subscription service. See, e.g., Koresko v. RealNetworks, Inc., 291 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (E.D. Cal. 2003) (dismissing case pursuant to end-user license agreement forum selection clause).   Successfully represented client in two similar cases filed in State of Washington.
• Employers Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court, 161 Cal. App. 4th 906, 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 733 (2d Dist. 2008) (ruling as a matter of first impression under California law that course of performance evidence is relevant to interpretation of insurance contracts).
• Welles v. Brack & Brock Confections, Inc., 2001 WL 823887 (7th Cir. July 18, 2001) (affirming summary judgment in favor of client on ERISA claim relating to severance plan).
• Mein v. Carus Corp., 241 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2001) (affirming motion to dismiss in client’s favor on ERISA claim relating to retirement contributions).
• Blakely v. Brach & Brock Confections Inc., 191 F. Supp. 943 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (summary judgment in favor of client on race discrimination claims).
• Talano v. Northwestern Medical Foundation, 2000 WL 1100337 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2000) (summary judgment in favor of client on age discrimination claim).