Thoughtful about possibilities.  Driven to Get You There.


Rick Juckniess is a trusted advisor and litigator who invests himself in his clients’ vision and works closely with them to develop creative and practical solutions. He has a deep knowledge of civil procedure and discovery, and uses his experience to help clients understand what can be achieved in both bringing or defending civil actions.

Rick has served as lead counsel in representing groups of defendants when their business practices have been challenged. When 70 manufactured-housing builders and parks were sued in California, Rick led the defendants in getting the case dismissed, and preserved that win on appeal. In Michigan, when a group of memorial parks and the Michigan Cemetery Association were sued, he obtained dismissal, prevailed on appeal, and added Rule 11 sanctions to that victory on appeal.

Rick is tenacious and insightful in approaching litigation and case strategy. In representing a plaintiff in a multimillion-dollar fraud case, he pressed discovery and used the opposing party’s discovery violations to get a rare default judgment of liability against the defendant. When a Fortune 100 company resisted discovery in a trade-secret matter involving printing technology, Rick uncovered physical samples that had been previously withheld, and convinced the Magistrate Judge to recommend dispositive sanctions leading to a favorable settlement.


Get in touch

We are available to discuss your issue and examine potential actions or analysis, to determine how we can help, to explore approaches available, and to consider potential recoveries prior to retention.

Contact us:  (734) 707-1515



Rick Juckniess, Esq.



Juris Doctor, cum laude, 1995

B.S., Economics, with distinction, 1992;                               Phi Beta Kappa;  Omicron Delta Epsilon


Bar Admissions

  • Michigan

  • California

  • Colorado

  • Minnesota

  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

  • U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan

  • U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Awards & honors

Super Lawyers - Michigan 2010-2019

America’s Top 100 High Stakes Litigators

Best Lawyers 2017-2019

selected Publications and articles

Don’t Settle for Less?  Antitrust Risks of Settling your intellectual Property Lawsuit After Actavis, Michigan Bar Journal, December 2015

Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla:  Antitrust and Intellectual Property Rights — the Ultimate Counterweapon? (with Suzanne Wahl), Michigan Bar Journal, December 2012

The Game of All Fours:  Internet Commerce, the Rules, (with Angela Jackson), Michigan Bar Journal, February 2012

An End to Uniqueness-Based Presumptions of Market Power:  Beyond Illinois Tool (with Kimberly Kefalas), Michigan Bar Journal, September 2008

Presentation: The Capper Volstead Antitrust Exception — Boldly Going Where it Has Not Gone Before, Great Lakes Antitrust Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, November 2011

Presentation:  Tying and Bundling in the Health Care Sector, State Bar of Michigan Antitrust, Trade Regulation and Franchise Section Seminar, Novi, Michigan, March 2008

Presentation:  Antitrust, Market Definition and Competitive Problems, Las Vegas, Nevada, February 2008


Encana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. v. Zaremba Family Farms, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-369 (June 21, 2016, W. D. Mich.) Obtained partial summary judgment on antitrust claims;  Trial counsel successful in defeating multi-million dollar fraud and tortious interference claims

Intelligen Power Sys., LLC v. dVentus Technologies LLC, 73 F.Supp.3d 378 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)(defended generator and inverter manufacturer in connection with breach of contract and and fraud claims)

Ajuba Int’l, LLC v. Saharia, 871 F.Supp.2d 671 (E.D.Mich. 2012)(representation of Indian company in connection with contract and non-competition claims with co-pending proceedings in High Court of Judicature at Madras, India)

PT Pukuafu Indah v. US Securities and Exchange Com’n, 661 F.3d 914 (6th Cir. 2011)(represented co-defendnat in claims for securities fraud and conversion, resulting in dismissal, affirmed on appeal)

SC Manufactured Homes, Inc. v. Liebert, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 73 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2008) cert. denied. (Lead counsel in obtaining dismissal and on appeal, of 70-defendant antitrust conspiracy and tying claims)  

Michigan Division-Monument Builders of North America v. Michigan Cemetery Ass’n, 458 F.Supp.2d 474 (E.D.Mich 2006), aff’d, 524 F.3d 726 (6th Cir. 2008)(Obtained dismissal of antitrust class action claims brought against Michigan Cemetery Association and 20 cemetery-company defendants for tying and attempted monopolization, affirmed on appeal)  

Valassis Communications, Inc. v. News America Inc., 2007 WL 909232 (E.D.Mich. 2007) Antitrust claims brought against News America Inc. and affiliates for pattern of business practices in free-standing inserts and in-store marketing, coercion and bundling.

Pocono Invitational Sports Camp, Inc. v. NCAA, 317 F.Supp.2d 569 (E.D.Pa. 2004). Received summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims of conspiracy to restrain trade in summer basketball camps through implementation of NCAA recruiting rules limiting and regulating summer basketball camp elements. 

Antidote Int’l Films, Inc. v. Motion Picture Association of America, 03 Civ. 9393 (Mukasey), (S.D.N.Y December 5, 2003). Obtained preliminary injunction against Motion Picture Association of America for violation of Sherman Act in adoption and implementation of “screeners policy” disadvantaging independent filmmakers. 

Antidote Int’l Films, Inc. v. Bloomsbury Publishing and J.T. LeRoy aka Laura Albert, PLC, 242 F.R.D. 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Fraud claims brought against notorious JT LeRoy aka Laura Albert which resulted in trial verdict and punitive damages.  Decision held that crime/fraud exception applied to documents over which defendant asserted privilege.

QQC, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 258 F.Supp.2d 718 (E.D.Mich. 2003)(represented plaintiff in patent inventorship and development agreement claims and counterclaims)