REPRESENTATIVE CASES

Mr. Santiago has extensive experience with a wide range of civil litigation matters. Representative cases include:

● Reported Decisions
● Wage and Hour Cases
● Wrongful Death and Personal Injury Cases
● Other Cases

Prosecuted a common law contribution lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota by Federal Express against Signature Flight Support. The lawsuit arose from an accident in which a Federal Express aircraft struck a parked BAX Global, Inc. aircraft while the Federal Express aircraft was taxiing at the Minneapolis – St. Paul Airport. After Federal Express settled BAX Global, Inc.’s property damage claim for $850,000, Federal Express sought contribution from Signature Flight Support on the basis that the latter’s negligence in several respects approximately caused the accident. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict that Slight Flight Support’s negligence was a direct cause of the accident and, therefore, it was liable to Federal Express for 31% of the settlement that Federal Express paid BAX Global, Inc. See Bax Global, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp., 2004 WL 1447940 (D. Minn., May 26, 2004).

Subject: *

Name: *

Message: *

Wage and Hour Cases:
Prosecuted a wage and hour class action captioned Brian Maston et al. v. Prima Pizza, Inc. et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC508046. The class consisted of all persons employed by defendants as general managers or assistant managers at any of the Domino’s Pizza stores in California operated by defendants at any time between May 6, 2009, and January 15, 2015, the date of the Los Angeles Superior Court’s Order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement. This class action arose from defendants’ alleged failures, inter alia, to pay overtime to the class members for attending work-related weekly and monthly meetings as required by California Labor Code §510(a) and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 5-2001, §3(A). On September 18, 2015, the Los Angeles Superior Court granted final approval of the class action settlement and entered final judgment thereon.

Currently prosecuting a wage and hour class action captioned Christopher L. Battle v. Fastrucking.com, LLC, San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2014-00020611-CU-OE-CTL. The proposed class consists of all persons who were employed by defendant as truck drivers at any of its facilities in California at any time between June 24, 2010, and the date of the San Diego Superior Court’s Order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement reflected in the Second Amended Stipulation of Class Action Settlement. This class action arises from defendant’s alleged failures, inter alia: (a) to pay the proposed class members all wages due and owing for the hours they worked off-the-clock as required by California Labor Code §204(a) and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 9-2001, §4(B); (b) to provide the proposed class members with meal breaks as required by California Labor Code §512(a); (c) to authorize and permit the proposed class members to take rest breaks as required by Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 9-2001, §12(A); and (d) to timely pay the proposed class members who are no longer employed by defendant all wages due and owing after the termination of their employment as required by California Labor Code §203(a). Plaintiff’s motion for an Order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement is set for hearing on March 25, 2016.

Currently prosecuting a wage and hour class action captioned Israel Garcia et al. v. Five Guys Operations, LLC, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2015-00768184-CU-OE-CXC. The proposed class consists of all persons who were employed by defendant as general managers, assistant general managers or shift leads at any of its restaurants in California at any time from January 27, 2011, to the time of trial. This class action arises from defendant’s alleged practices of encouraging and/or allowing the proposed class members to work off-the-clock during their meal periods and failing to pay any compensation (including minimum wages, straight time pay and overtime pay where appropriate) for those hours worked in violation of, inter alia, California Labor Code §§204(a), 510(a) and 1194(a). The litigation is pending.

Prosecuted a 12-plaintiff wage and hour lawsuit by employees of a fumigation company against the fumigation company in the Orange County Superior Court and, subsequently by agreement of all parties, binding arbitration with the American Arbitration Association. This case arose from the fumigation company’s alleged practice of paying its employees flat daily rates regardless of the number of hours they worked, thereby violating the overtime pay requirements of California Labor Code §§ 510(a) and 515(d)(2) and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 5-2001, §3(A). The parties reached a confidential settlement of all claims.

Prosecuted a 3-plaintiff wage and hour lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court by sales representatives employed by a motor vehicle dealer arising from the motor vehicle dealer’s alleged failures, inter alia: (a) to pay overtime as required by California Labor Code §510(a); (b) to provide meal breaks under California Labor Code §512(a); (c) to authorize and permit rest breaks under Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7-2001, §12(A); and (d) to timely pay all wages due and owing after the termination of certain plaintiffs’ employment as required by California Labor Code §203(a). The parties reached a confidential settlement of all claims.

Prosecuted a 3-plaintiff wage and hour lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court by employees of a medical marijuana dispensary arising from the dispensary’s alleged failures, inter alia: (a) to pay overtime as required by California Labor Code §510(a); (b) to provide meal breaks under California Labor Code §512(a); (c) to authorize and permit rest breaks under Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4-2001, §12(A); and (d) to timely pay all wages due and owing after the termination of plaintiffs’ employment as required by California Labor Code §203(a). The parties reached a confidential settlement of all claims.

Prosecuted a 3-plaintiff wage and hour lawsuit in the Orange County Superior Court by a bartender and waiters employed by a restaurant arising from the restaurant’s alleged failures, inter alia: (a) to pay overtime as required by California Labor Code §510(a); (b) to provide meal periods under California Labor Code §512(a); (c) to authorize and permit rest periods as required by Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 5-2001, §12(A); and (d) to timely pay all wages due and owing after the termination of plaintiffs’ employment as required by California Labor Code §203(a). The parties reached a confidential settlement of all claims.

Prosecuted a 3-plaintiff wage and hour lawsuit in the San Diego Superior Court by construction workers employed by a construction company arising from the construction company’s alleged failures, inter alia: (a) to pay overtime as required by California Labor Code §510(a); (b) to provide meal periods under California Labor Code §512(a); (c) to authorize and permit rest periods under Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16-2001, §11(D); and (d) to timely pay all wages due and owing after the termination of one plaintiff’s employment as required by California Labor Code §203(a). The parties reached a confidential settlement of all claims.

Prosecuted a 2-plaintiff wage and hour lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court by employees of a gas station arising from the gas station’s alleged failures, inter alia: (a) to pay minimum wages as required by California Labor Code §1194(a); (b) to pay overtime as required by California Labor Code §510(a); (c) to provide meal breaks as required by California Labor Code §512(a); and (d) to authorize and permit rest breaks as required by Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7-2001, §12(A). The parties reached a confidential settlement of all claims.

Prosecuted a single-plaintiff wage and hour lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court by a cook employed by a restaurant arising from the restaurant’s alleged failures, inter alia: (a) to pay any wages for all hours worked off-the-clock in violation of, inter California Labor Code §§204(a), 510(a) and 1194(a); (b) to provide meal periods under California Labor Code §512(a); and (c) to timely pay all wages due and owing after the termination of plaintiff’s employment as required by California Labor Code §203(a). The parties reached a confidential settlement of all claims.

Prosecuted a single-plaintiff wage and hour lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court by a sales representative employed by a clothing retailer arising from the clothing retailer’s alleged failures, inter alia: (a) to pay overtime as required by California Labor Code §510(a); (b) to provide meal breaks under California Labor Code §512(a); and (c) to authorize and permit rest breaks under Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7-2001, §12(A). The parties reached a confidential settlement of all claims.

Prosecuted a single-plaintiff wage and hour lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court by a bookkeeper employed by a carpet company arising from the carpet company’s alleged failures, inter alia: (a) to pay overtime as required by California Labor Code §510(a); (b) to provide meal periods under California Labor Code §512(a); (c) to authorize and permit rest periods as required by Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7-2001, §12(A); and (d) to timely pay all wages due and owing after the termination of plaintiff’s employment as required by California Labor Code §203(a). The parties reached a confidential settlement of all claims.

Prosecuted a single-plaintiff wage and hour lawsuit in the Orange County Superior Court by a manager employed by a juice company arising from the juice company’s alleged failures, inter alia: (a) to pay overtime as required by California Labor Code §510(a); (b) to provide meal periods under California Labor Code §512(a); and (c) to authorize and permit rest periods under Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 5-2001, §12(A). The parties reached a confidential settlement of all claims.

Prosecuted a single-plaintiff wage and hour lawsuit in the Orange County Superior Court by a dental assistant employed by a dental practice arising from the dental practice’s alleged failures, inter alia: (a) to pay overtime as required by California Labor Code §510(a); (b) to provide meal breaks under California Labor Code §512(a); and (c) to authorize and permit rest breaks under Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4-2001, §12(A). The parties reached a confidential settlement of all claims.

Prosecuted a single-plaintiff wage and hour lawsuit in the Orange County Superior Court by a waitress employed by a restaurant arising from the restaurant’s alleged failures, inter alia: (a) to pay minimum wages as required by California Labor Code §1194(a); (b) to pay overtime as required by California Labor Code §510(a); (c) to provide meal periods under California Labor Code §512(a); (d) to authorize and permit rest periods as required by Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 5-2001, §12(A); and (e) to timely pay all wages due and owing after the termination of plaintiff’s employment as required by California Labor Code §203(a). The parties reached a confidential settlement of all claims.

Prosecuted a single-plaintiff wage and hour lawsuit in the San Diego Superior Court by a licensed fumigator employed by a fumigation company arising from the fumigation company’s alleged practice of paying a flat daily rate regardless of the number of hours worked, thereby violating the overtime pay requirements of California Labor Code §§ 510(a) and 515(d)(2) and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 5-2001, §3(A). The parties reached a confidential settlement of all claims.

Prosecuted a single-plaintiff wage and hour lawsuit in the San Diego Superior Court by a mechanic employed by a turf company arising from the turf company’s alleged failures, inter alia: (a) to pay overtime as required by California Labor Code §510(a); and (b) to timely pay all wages due and owing after the termination of plaintiff’s employment as required by California Labor Code §203(a). The parties reached a confidential settlement of all claims.

Prosecuted a single-plaintiff wage and hour lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court by an accountant misclassified as an independent contractor by an accounting company arising from the accounting company’s alleged failures, inter alia: (a) to pay overtime as required by California Labor Code §510(a); (b) to provide meal periods under California Labor Code §512(a); (c) to authorize and permit rest periods under Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4-2001, §12(A); and (d) to timely pay all wages due and owing after the termination of plaintiff’s employment as required by California Labor Code §203(a). The parties reached a confidential settlement of all claims.

Numerous wage and hour claims resolved before formal litigation by the following claimants: (a) 4 mechanics employed by a truck rental / repair company in Carson, California; (b) 4 surgical assistants employed by a cosmetic surgery center in Los Angeles, California; (c) 3 engineers misclassified as exempt employees by a vendor for various airlines and airframe manufacturers in Irvine, California; and (d) 2 disc jockeys employed by a radio station in Palm Springs, California.

Free Consultation

Reported Decisions:
Prosecuted a $6 million subrogation lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court by the Insurers of Spanair S.A. against McDonnell Douglas Corporation, The Boeing Company, Lockheed Martin Corporation and Honeywell International Inc., among other defendants. The lawsuit arose from the main landing gear collapse of a Spanair S.A. MD-83 aircraft in Liverpool, United Kingdom. Mr. Santiago’s responsibilities included all aspects of the plaintiffs’ appeal – including the oral argument of the plaintiffs’ appeal – of the Los Angeles Superior Court’s dismissal of the subrogation lawsuit. The appeal resulted in the California Court of Appeals’ reversal of the dismissal. See Spanair S.A. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 172 Cal.App.4th 348 (2nd Dist. 2009).

Wrongful Death and Personal Injury Cases:
Prosecuted a wrongful death lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court by the parents of the decedent (a 31 year old veteran of the U.S. Air Force) against a medical center for its alleged failures to diagnose, treat and warn of the risks of the decedent’s severely elevated blood pressure (a leading cause of spontaneous intracranial hemorrhages) when he visited the emergency room. Shortly thereafter, the decedent died of a spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage. The parties reached a confidential settlement of all claims.

Prosecuted a strict products liability and negligence lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court by the plaintiff (a 42 year old veteran of the U.S. Army) who was severely injured while using certain exercise equipment that struck him in the face, thereby causing bleeding in the anterior chambers of both eyes, severely compromised vision for several months, and significantly increased risks of glaucoma and retinal detachment for the rest of his life. Plaintiff alleged the product was unreasonably dangerous due to design defects and inadequate warnings by the manufacturer and the retailer. The parties reached a confidential settlement of all claims.

Currently prosecuting strict products liability and negligence claims by a consumer (a 48 year old commercial real estate executive) who was severely injured while using certain exercise equipment that struck him in the face, thereby causing permanent virtual blindness in his right eye. The consumer alleges the product is unreasonably dangerous due to design defects and inadequate warnings by the manufacturer and the retailer. The parties are attempting to reach a global settlement of all claims. If necessary, a strict products liability and negligence lawsuit will be filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Prosecuted uninsured and underinsured motorist claims against the Automobile Club of Southern California (i.e., AAA) arising from near-fatal motor vehicle accidents in Los Angeles and San Diego Counties. The parties reached confidential settlements of all claims via mediation.

Defended a wrongful death lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court by the family of a deceased passenger against the chief executive officer of a Pakistani airline. The lawsuit arose from an accident in which the airline’s Airbus 321-231 aircraft crashed during its final approach to the Benazir Bhutto International Airport in Islamabad, Pakistan. All 152 persons onboard the aircraft (including the passenger whose death led to this lawsuit) died. Mr. Santiago’s responsibilities included all aspects of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds of forum non conveniens or, alternatively, to stay the litigation in favor of the litigation of all claims in Pakistan. Shortly after the filing of that motion, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.

Defended a wrongful death lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by the families of six deceased passengers against a Pakistani airline. The lawsuit arose from an accident in which the airline’s Airbus 321-231 aircraft crashed during its final approach to the Benazir Bhutto International Airport in Islamabad, Pakistan. All 152 persons onboard the aircraft (including the passengers whose deaths led to this lawsuit) died. Mr. Santiago’s responsibilities included all aspects of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds of forum non conveniens or, alternatively, to stay the litigation in favor of the litigation of all claims in Pakistan. The District Court granted the motion and, shortly thereafter, the parties reached a confidential settlement agreement.

Defended 2 wrongful death lawsuits in state court in Chicago, Illinois, which arose from a mid-air collision of 2 aircraft near Meigs Field in Chicago. All 7 persons onboard the accident aircraft (including the 2 pilots of the accident aircraft) died. The families of the 2 deceased pilots filed wrongful death lawsuits against a third pilot on the theory that his excessive radio communications with the air traffic controller regarding his landing gear problem distracted the air traffic controller which, in turn, led to the air traffic controller failing to provide the appropriate warnings to the pilots of the accident aircraft that they were on a collision course. Both lawsuits were consolidated for trial. In the first lawsuit, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant on the basis that the first pilot was more than 50% at fault for the accident (which precluded any recovery by the first pilot’s family under Illinois’ modified comparative negligence law). In the second lawsuit, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in an amount less than the defendant’s insurance coverage. Therefore, the defendant was not required to pay any portion of the judgment.

Defended a wrongful death lawsuit in state court in Houston, Texas, by the family of a deceased tow truck driver against his employer, among other defendants. (Defendant’s status as a non-subscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act enabled it to be sued by the truck driver’s family.) The lawsuit arose from an accident in which the truck driver was crushed by his truck’s boom while he was attempting to upright an excessively overweight sea container which had fallen on its side in a vacant lot. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant negligently supplied a defective chain which broke during the truck driver’s attempt to upright the sea container, thereby causing the truck to flip over and the truck’s boom to crush the truck driver. Mr. Santiago’s responsibilities included all aspects of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that, even if the defendant negligently supplied the truck driver with a defective chain, the defendant could not be liable because: (a) such negligence could not have proximately caused the accident where, due to the excessively overweight sea container, the chain would have broken even it were not defective; and (b) other defendants’ negligence (e.g., the shipper’s concealing the actual weight of the sea container and the trucking company’s leaving the sea container in a vacant lot) constituted intervening, superseding causes of the accident. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment strengthened the defendant’s settlement position at the Court-ordered mediation. Under the parties’ settlement agreement, the defendant was required to pay an amount substantially below its insurance coverage limit.

Defended a wrongful death lawsuit in state court in Houston, Texas, by the family of a deceased motorist against a used-car dealer, among other defendants. The lawsuit arose from an accident in which one of the tires of a truck which the defendant sold exploded, thereby causing a fatal roll-over of the truck. The defendant sold the truck on an as-is / no-warranty basis almost one year before the accident occurred. The plaintiffs (family members of the decedent) alleged that the defendant negligently failed to warn the decedent of the defective nature of the tire. Plaintiffs alleged various product liability claims against the other defendants: Ford Motor Company (the manufacturer of the truck) and Michelin North America, Inc. (the manufacturer of the tire which exploded). Mr. Santiago’s responsibilities included overseeing all discovery, analyzing the used car dealer’s potential exposure under Texas law, and handling all settlement discussions. The parties reached a nuisance-value settlement of the plaintiffs’ claims against the used car dealer. The plaintiffs settled with the manufacturers of the truck and the tire for substantially larger amounts.

Defended wrongful death claims by the family of a general in the Colombian army against a Colombian helicopter operator. The wrongful death claims arose from the crash of a Bell 206B-2 helicopter in a mountainous region near Bucaramanga, Colombia. All persons onboard the helicopter died immediately after the crash. Mr. Santiago’s responsibilities included analyzing the helicopter operator’s potential exposure under Colombian law and handling all settlement discussions. The parties reached confidential settlements after extensive settlement negotiations with the decedent’s family’s representative.

Defended wrongful death claims by the families of 4 passengers against a Venezuelan aircraft owner arising from the crash of a Beechcraft Baron 58 aircraft shortly after departure from the Mata de Juajua Airport in Valle de la Pascua, Venezuela, with the intended destination of Caracas, Venezuela. All 5 persons onboard the aircraft (4 passengers and one pilot) died immediately after the crash. Mr. Santiago’s responsibilities included analyzing the aircraft owner’s potential exposure under Venezuelan law and handling all settlement discussions. The parties reached confidential settlements after extensive settlement negotiations with the decedents’ families’ representatives.

Other Cases:
Currently prosecuting an identity theft class action captioned Neerav N. Jadeja et al. v. American Para Professional Systems, Inc. et al., San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2013-00040592. The proposed class consists of all persons whose names appeared on documentation in the possession of certain criminals at the time of their arrests and to whom American Para Professional Systems, Inc. sent letters notifying them of potential identity theft. This class action arises from defendants’ alleged failures to safeguard life insurance applicants’ personal identifying information. The parties have agreed to a mediated class action settlement. The San Diego Superior Court’s preliminary and final approvals of the class action settlement are pending.

Prosecuted a subrogation action by Federal Express’ Insurers against Chiron Corporation and Perceptive Biosystems for the total loss of a Federal Express DC-10-10F aircraft arising from an in-flight fire on September 4, 1996. Federal Express was the only operator of DC-10-10Fs in the world on the date of the loss. Mr. Santiago’s responsibilities included working with an aircraft valuation expert to provide opinions regarding the accident aircraft’s value on the date of the loss. The expert opined, inter alia, the replacement cost approach (which measures value by determining the current replacement cost of the aircraft and deducting for the various elements of depreciation, physical deterioration and obsolescence) is the most reliable method of determining the accident aircraft’s value.

Defended a spoliation-of-evidence lawsuit by a cargo airline employee against his employer arising from an accident in which his leg was crushed by cargo equipment improperly maintained by a second cargo airline. Plaintiff alleged that his employer’s failure to preserve surveillance video of the accident forced him to accept a “woefully inadequate” settlement of his personal injury lawsuit against the second cargo airline. Plaintiff further alleged that the surveillance video would have rebutted the second cargo airline’s argument that plaintiff’s version of how the accident occurred was not credible. The parties reached a confidential settlement of plaintiff’s spoliation-of-evidence lawsuit at a Court-ordered mediation.

Defended a personal injury lawsuit by an aircraft captain against an aircraft charterer, among other defendants, arising from the crash of the aircraft shortly after takeoff from the El Dorado International Airport in Bogotá, Colombia. The plaintiff alleged that the accident occurred as a result of the charterer’s negligent delivery of adulterated, contaminated or otherwise tainted fuel to the aircraft which, in turn, caused a loss of thrust to the aircraft. Mr. Santiago’s responsibilities included all aspects of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds of forum non conveniens in favor of the litigation of the plaintiff’s claims in Colombia. After the defendant’s filing of that motion, and prior to the plaintiff’s filing of any opposition thereto, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all of his claims against the defendant. The plaintiff continued to litigate his claims against the remaining defendants: The Boeing Company (which manufactured the accident aircraft) and Pratt & Whitney (which manufactured the accident aircraft’s engines).

Defended 10 property damage lawsuits in Quito, Ecuador, by various freight forwarders against a cargo airline arising from the total loss of perishable flowers transported from Quito to Amsterdam, Holland. Shortly after the defendant delivered the flowers to the consignee in Amsterdam, a surveyor retained by the consignee determined that the flowers had deteriorated to the point of having no commercial value. The parties reached confidential settlements after extensive litigation and settlement discussions.

Email: *

Check here to receive email updates

REPRESENTATIVE CASES

Defended third-party complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) and CFM International, Inc. (“CFM”) against P.T. Garuda Indonesia (“Garuda”), an airline owned and operated by the Indonesian government. The third-party complaints arose from the emergency landing of a Garuda 737-300 aircraft in the Bengawan Solo River in Indonesia which led to numerous foreign passengers’ personal injury claims against Boeing and CFM. Mr. Santiago’s responsibilities included all aspects of Garuda’s motion to dismiss Boeing’s and CFM’s third-party complaints on the grounds of forum non conveniens in favor of the litigation of all claims in Indonesia. The District Court granted Garuda’s motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Notably, the District Court observed, “it would be an act of supererogation to extend this opinion by repeating the arguments that have been presented so ably in Garuda’s 15-page memorandum in support of its motion. In sum, the motion to dismiss is granted for the reasons so well advanced by Garuda.” See Lie v. Boeing Co., 2004 WL 1462451 (N.D.Ill., June 29, 2004) and Lie v. Boeing Co., 311 F.Supp.2d 725 (N.D.Ill. 2004).

Defended a breach of contract lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by International Insurance Agency Services, LLC against Revios Reinsurance U.S., Inc. The lawsuit arose from the defendant reinsurer’s alleged breaches of certain reinsurance and retrocession contracts to which the plaintiff (a managing general underwriter of a health and life insurance program which the defendant reinsured) was not a party. Mr. Santiago’s responsibilities including all aspects of the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s claims under the arbitration clauses of the reinsurance and retrocession contracts to which the plaintiff was not a party. Mr. Santiago argued on behalf of the defendant that, under the applicable law, plaintiff could not have it both ways (i.e., on the one hand, seek the benefits of the reinsurance and retrocession contracts but, on the other hand, try to avoid the arbitration clauses under those contracts). The District Court agreed, holding that the plaintiff was “estopped” (i.e., legally prevented) from refusing to arbitrate its dispute with the defendant where, according to the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint, the plaintiff received direct benefits from the contracts which contained the arbitration clauses. The District Court’s granting of the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration strengthened the defendant’s settlement position which, in turn, facilitated a settlement on terms more favorable to the defendant. See International Ins. Agency Services, LLC v. Revios Reinsurance U.S., Inc., 2007 WL 951943 (N.D. Ill., March 27, 2007).