Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : In Their Opinion : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

BROADDUS v. SHIELDS (December 21, 2011)

As of 2001, Bret Broaddus and Kevin Shields were partners in Will Partners, LLC. Broaddus was in a bad car accident in November of that year. Between February and September 2002, a legal guardian conducted Broaddus' affairs. In early 2003, Shields purchased Broaddus’ interest in Will Partners for $600,000. In May 2008, Broaddus brought suit against Shields for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging that Shields lied to him about the company’s financial health. The suit was filed five years and two months after the sale. Shields moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. Judge St. Eve (N.D. Ill.) granted the motion, rejecting Broaddus’ invocation of the discovery rule. The court also granted summary judgment to Shields on his counterclaims for contractual indemnification and fee shifting. The court awarded approximately $800,000 in attorneys fees. Broaddus appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Flaum and Manion and District Judge Magnus-Stinson affirmed. The Court first concluded that Broaddus waived his legal disability argument in that he raised it for the first time on appeal. The Court also concluded that Broaddus waived his discovery rule argument. Although he raised and argued it in the district court, he did not raise it in his opening brief on appeal. The Court also rejected the discovery rule argument on its merits. Broaddus had the burden of proving the date of discovery. His evidence on that point was generally inadmissible and unreliable. Turning to the counterclaims, the Court noted that Broaddus’ sole argument was that his agreements to indemnify Shields only applied to third party claims. Relying on the contractual language, the general definition of indemnify, and Delaware law, the Court agreed with the district court that the indemnification provisions were enforceable. Finally, the Court found Broaddus’ challenges to the fee award without merit.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

RODRIGUEZ v. COOK COUNTY (December 15, 2011)

More than a decade ago, Angel Rodriguez was convicted of murder by a state court jury. An appellate court concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain the verdict and reversed. Rodriguez filed a federal civil rights suit against two officers involved in his arrest. He lost at the trial court level and the Seventh Circuit affirmed in 2006. Rodriguez obtained a "certificate of innocence" under Illinois state law in 2009. On the grounds that the certificate created a new cause of action, Rodriguez again filed suit in 2010 against the original defendants and three prosecutors. Judge Conlon (N.D. Ill.) dismissed the case against the original defendants on res judicata grounds and dismissed the case against the new defendants on statute of limitations grounds. She also dismissed the state law claims against the prosecutors on subject matter jurisdiction grounds, concluding that they were entitled to state immunity. Rodriguez appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Cudahy and Tinder affirmed. The Court addressed the Illinois law at issue. The statute, enacted in 2008, allows a person who has had a conviction set aside after serving prison time to obtain a certificate of innocence and file a petition in the Illinois Court of Claims for compensation. It does not, and could not, alter the effect of a federal court judgment nor does it, although it could, toll or extend the limitations period for a § 1983 suit. Rodriguez' claim accrued in 2000, when the Illinois appellate court reversed his conviction. His certificate of innocence does nothing to change that. The federal claims are time-barred. The Court did disagree with the district court's treatment of the state law claims against the prosecutors. It is not clear whether Rodriguez asserts his claim against the prosecutors in their official or personal capacities. But, if the former, the suit is really against the State and the prosecutors should be dismissed. If the latter (which the district court assumed), there is no jurisdictional barrier to the suit proceeding in federal court. The prosecutors could simply assert state law immunity as an affirmative defense. Nevertheless, since it was clear that the district court would have declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, its error had no effect. The Court affirmed the dismissal without prejudice, as modified.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

MCCANN v. HY-VEE, INC. (November 22, 2011)

Denise and Anthony McCann divorced in 2002. The decree required Anthony to transfer stock in the closely held company by whom he was employed to Denise and to pay child support through 2007 and alimony through 2012. The decree also provided that the alimony obligation could end as early as 2007 if Anthony sold the stock and gave Denise the proceeds. According to Denise, the company's CFO told her that the shares could not be sold until Anthony died or left the company. In fact, that was not the case and Anthony did sell the stock in 2007, gave Denise the proceeds, and stopped making alimony payments. Denise filed suit against the company in September of 2009, alleging a violation of Section 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. Judge Nordberg (N.D. Ill.) dismissed the case on statute of limitations grounds. Denise appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Posner, Flaum, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed the Company's alternative grounds urged for dismissal -- that there was no purchase or sale of stock. The Court concluded otherwise and held that the 2007 sale by Anthony was actually an involuntary sale by Denise and that the 2002 transfer pursuant to the divorce decree was also a sale in that Denise gave up certain demands in return for the shares. Returning to the timeliness issue, the Court noted that the statute allows a securities fraud case to be brought no later than two years after the discovery of facts constituting the violation or five years after the violation. Although the Court addressed the two-year prong, it based its holding solely on the five-year prong. Under that part of the statute, a plaintiff has five years to sue from the date of the violation. Denise argued that the violation occurred in 2007, when Anthony sold the stock and stopped making the alimony payments. The Court agreed that that was the time of her injury but concluded that injury was not an element of the "violation" indicated in the statute. Here, the alleged violation occurred when the CFO misrepresented the restrictions or limitations on Anthony's ability to sell the stock. That occurred in 2002. Denise's 2009 suit is untimely.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

RAY v. MAHER (November 1, 2011)

Robert Ray was arrested in late 2007. Before he was taken to jail, he was treated at a local hospital for alcohol withdrawal. He became ill while in jail. Jail authorities administered some medication but never took him to a hospital. Ray died within days. Almost 3 years later, his ex-wife was appointed administrator of his estate. She brought § 1983 claims for denial of basic medical services against the jail doctor and a number of other Sangamon County employees. Ray’s daughter, the sole beneficiary of the estate, recently turned 18 and replaced her mother as administrator. Judge Mihm (C.D. Ill.) dismissed the claim on statute of limitations grounds. The administrator appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Wood and Tinder affirmed. The limitations period for a § 1983 claim is governed by state law. In Illinois, one has two years within which to file such a claim. The estate's administrator did not meet that 2009 deadline. Its only argument is that the beneficiary of the estate was under the age of 18 at the time the claim accrued and she brought the claim within two years of her reaching majority. Unfortunately, that argument is misplaced. The claim belongs to the estate. It must be brought by its administrator on a timely basis in order to survive. A beneficiary does not have a personal claim. His or her age at the time the claim accrues is irrelevant.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ARROYO v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (September 1, 2011)

Maria Arroyo received medical care at the federally-funded Erie Family Health Center during her pregnancy. Her doctors there detected no problems with her pregnancy. She gave birth to a son in May of 2003, more than a month premature. Her doctors never gave her a series of tests that are typically administered in the last month of pregnancy to detect the risk of the baby contracting a disease from his mother's blood. In those situations where the tests are not administered, medical professionals involved in the birth are more vigilant in identifying risk factors and treating the baby. Although Arroyo's baby did exhibit several risk factors, the treating doctors failed to detect or treat an infection. The baby suffered permanent brain damage. The hospital told Arroyo that her son suffered brain damage because of exposure to blood but did not tell her that it could have been prevented. A year later, Arroyo gave birth to a second son. In connection with that birth, she learned about the risk of infection and what could be done about it. A few months later, she saw a lawyer’s ad on television that prompted her to consult her own lawyer. In December of 2005, the Arroyos filed a medical malpractice claim against the two treating physicians in state court. Because the Erie Center doctors are treated as federal employees, the United States assumed the liability and the case proceeded in federal court under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Judge St. Eve (N.D. Ill.) found in favor of the Arroyos after a bench trial, concluded that the claim was brought within the two year statute of limitations, and awarded over $29 million in damages. The United States appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Cudahy and Posner (concurring) affirmed. An FTCA claim is timely if it is filed within two years of its accrual. A claim accrues when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered that he has been injured by an act attributable to the government. The Court emphasized that knowledge of government control is necessary. Here, the Court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that the claim did not accrue until 2004 (either at the time of Arroyo’s second birth or the time of the television commercial). The only information the hospital provided in 2003 was the biological cause of the injury. There is no evidence that the Arroyos knew that there was potential malpractice. The Court also concluded the district court did not err in concluding that a reasonably diligent person would also not have known to pursue a deeper inquiry in 2003. The Court rejected the government's position that any individual injured while under the care of a medical professional should assume some fault on the part of that professional.

Judge Posner wrote a separate concurrence. He agreed with the panel opinion in its entirety. In his concurrence, he addressed two questions that were not, and did not have to be, decided by the panel -- the characteristics of the objective "reasonable person" in deciding whether a plaintiff should have discovered his injury and the duty of a medical provider to be more candid with its patients.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

PREMIUM PLUS PARTNERS v. GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. (August 5, 2011)

On October 31, 2001, a Goldman Sachs employee provided its traders with certain information about 30-year government bonds that had not yet been made public. The traders bought futures contracts for the 30-year bonds and made a lot of money when the bonds’ price rose significantly. Unfortunately, their abnormal trading practices led to an SEC investigation. The SEC filed a civil complaint in September 2003. In March of 2004, Premium Plus Partners brought a class action on behalf of traders who had short positions in the bonds on October 31, no matter when they sold. Judge Der-Yeghiayan (N.D. Ill.) denied class certification. George Tomlinson, an individual investor who held a short position on October 31, then filed suit along with four other individual investors. Judge Bucklo (N.D. Ill.) dismissed the complaint on the pleadings, concluding that the two year statute of limitations had run before the class action had been filed (during which it would have been suspended). Meanwhile, in the Premium case, Goldman Sachs made an offer of judgment for the full amount of Premium's damages plus interest. Premium accepted the offer but also wanted to continue with the suit in order to certify a class and spread its costs among other class members. The court entered judgment on the Rule 68 offer and rejected Premium's proposed plan. Tomlinson then sought to intervene as class representative. The court denied that motion. Premium appeals the order denying class certification, Tomlinson appeals the order denying his motion to intervene, and Tomlinson also appeals the order dismissing his individual suit.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Sykes and Tinder affirmed with a modification. The Court first addressed the individual Tomlinson appeal. On the statute of limitations question, the Court assumed that the Merck federal securities fraud rule applies to a commodities fraud case because it was more favorable to Tomlinson than the understanding of the statute under the Commodity Exchange Act. Under Merck, the statute does not begin to run until the plaintiff discovers (or could have discovered) the essential facts of the violation, including scienter. Tomlinson admits that he was aware of his injury on October 31 and learned soon thereafter that Goldman Sachs had traded on nonpublic information. The central question, then, is whether Tomlinson could have discovered that Goldman Sachs acted with scienter. The Court concluded that all the facts regarding the transactions were in the public domain well before April of 2002. The fact that Goldman Sachs denied it and that the SEC did not file until late 2003 is of no moment. The district court did not err in dismissing the individual Tomlinson suit. The Court's decision on that appeal made their analysis of Tomlinson's intervention appeal rather simple. Since he has filed and lost his individual suit, he is not even a member of a potential class, much less an effective representative of the class. The Court turned to Premium's appeal. It noted that Premium had two options: a) it could have rejected the Rule 68 offer and continued with the case, or b) it could have accepted the Rule 68 offer and keep the case alive long enough for a viable class representative to intervene and pursue the class allegations. It cannotdo what it wants to do -- continue to push ahead with the case as class representative in the hopes of spreading some of its costs and increasing its net recovery. Finally, the Court did find an error in the district court's computation of interest. The court should have calculated a compound, rather than simple, interest. The Court remanded for a recalculation. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

CARDENAS v. CITY OF CHICAGO (July 20, 2011)

Chicago Police Officer Alejandro Gallegos obtained a search warrant that authorized a search of Maria Cardenas' apartment. Gallegos and other officers executed the warrant on December 14, 2007. According to Cardenas' complaint, the officers entered without knocking, threatened Cardenas and others with guns, and searched recklessly. They found nothing and left. Cardenas and the other apartment occupants filed suit against Gallegos and the City of Chicago. The Cook County Sheriff successfully served the City. They attempted to serve Gallegos through the Police Superintendent's Office but the summons was returned unserved in May 2008. In November, plaintiffs’ counsel wrote to the City’s counsel and asked the City to waive service on Gallegos or to provide his home address. In a telephone conversation in December, the City’s counsel informed plaintiffs’ counsel did it could not do the former and would not do the latter. The City and Gallegos moved to dismiss in September of 2009. Gallegos sought dismissal because he had never been served. The City sought dismissal under the Tort Immunity Act on the grounds that the City could not be liable for Gallegos's actions where Gallegos himself is not liable. Plaintiffs opposed the motion and also obtained an alias summons that they served properly through the Police Department’s Office of Legal Affairs on November 9. Judge Norgle (N.D. Ill.) granted the motions to dismiss. He concluded that plaintiffs had not served Gallegos in a timely manner and found no good cause that would support an extension. He also agreed with the City that there was no municipal liability without Gallegos in the case. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Kanne, and Hamilton affirmed. Any person that files a lawsuit has 120 days within which to serve a copy of the summons and complaint on each defendant. A district court judge has the discretion to extend the 120-day period if there is a showing of good cause. The Court noted that it reviewed such decisions on an abuse of discretion standard. The Court first rejected plaintiffs' contention that the May 2008 attempted service on the Superintendent was sufficient. That attempt occurred before the case was removed so Illinois law applies. Under Illinois law, service on a defendant’s employer is not sufficient. Next, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of an extension. It is clear that the district court considered a number of factors, including the fact that the expiration of the statute of limitations would bar a refiling of the suit. The plaintiffs did not perfect service for over a year and a half after filing the suit, they took very few steps to attempt to do so, and they knew of the consequences of the failure to do so. The Court could not conclude that the district court abused its discretion in failing to grant an extension. Finally, the Court conceded that a dismissal of this type is usually made without prejudice. Here however, where the statute of limitations has run, a dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

LOGAN v. WILKINS (July 8, 2011)

John Logan used to own a mobile home park in east-central Indiana. He claims that he no longer owns it as a result of the conduct of various local government officials and employees. Beginning in 2005, he says, these people started rumors that the health department was going to close the park, told the tenants to stop paying rent, obtained an order for the destruction of thirteen homes, hired an inept contractor who ended up destroying fourteen homes, and stole property. In September 2007, he lost the mobile home park to foreclosure. He also claims that the sheriff had someone order the tenants to vacate after the foreclosure. Logan brought suit in March of 2009 pursuant to §§ 1983 and 1981. Judge Lawrence (S.D. Ind.) dismissed the complaint. He found most of the allegations untimely under § 1983's two-year statute of limitations. The only claims within the two-year period related to the post-foreclosure conduct. Since Logan no longer own the property at that time, he had no claim. In an amended complaint, Logan alleged that the defendants concealed their conspiracy. The district court again dismissed. Logan appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Manion and Williams affirmed. In Indiana, the statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim is two years and it runs from the time a plaintiff knew or should have known of a constitutional violation. A defendant may be estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense if the defendant has concealed material facts from the plaintiff. Logan has not alleged any such facts on the part of the defendants. He simply claims that his attorney was prompted to investigate upon receiving some information at some point after the conduct occurred. But Logan and his attorney knew of the facts as they occurred and they could have investigated earlier. With respect to the post-foreclosure claims, the Court stated that Logan waived any argument by not addressing the claims in his opening brief. The Court added that no facts were alleged to support Logan's conspiracy theory. Finally, the Court declined Logan's request to remand for an opportunity to amend his complaint once again.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

THOMPSON v. RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. (June 22, 2011)

S. C. Johnson & Son changed its ERISA plan from a defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan in 1988. In the amended plan, each participant's account received interest credit at the greater of 4% or 75% of the Plan's rate of return. The Plan also allowed participants to take a lump-sum early withdrawal. But the plan penalized early withdrawers by including a provision that equated the future interest rate credits with the discount rate reduction. Thus, those that opted for the lump-sum received only their then-current account balance. A number of former participants in the Plan who received lump-sum distributions filed suit against the Plan in November of 2007. Although the Plan conceded the provision violated ERISA, it moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the claims were time-barred. Judge Stadtmueller (E.D. Wis.) concluded that Wisconsin's six-year contract statute of limitations applied and that each plaintiff's claim accrued when he received his distribution. Any plaintiff who took his distribution prior to November of 2001, therefore, was time-barred. With respect to the calculation of future interest credit, the court concluded that the Plan was entitled to some deference in choosing an appropriate calculation and adopted a modified version of the Plan’s proposed calculation. Plaintiffs appealed. The Plan cross-appealed.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Kanne, and Tinder affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. With respect to the statute of limitations, the Court noted the general rule that an ERISA claim for benefits accrues "upon a clear and equivocal repudiation of rights" known to the beneficiary. Although it considered it a very close question, the Court rejected the Plan's argument that the claims accrued when the Summary Plan Description and other materials were circulated in 1988 and 1989. Although those documents did disclose the illegal provision at issue, the Court concluded that they did not amount to an unequivocal repudiation. The ERISA right itself is fairly obscure, the information appeared in numerous publications received by Plan participants over the course of months, most of the information about the provision itself was not clear, and the clearest statements were found in the informal documents rather than the more formal Summary Plan Description. The Court did agree with the district court that the receipt of the distributions themselves did equal an unequivocal repudiation. The district court was correct. The Court turned to the method of calculation. It disagreed with the district court’s deference to the Plan. Plan administrators are normally given deference, particularly if the Plan itself gives them discretion. But that deference is given in situations where the Plan administrator is interpreting the Plan. Here, the Plan administrator is not interpreting the plan -- the Plan is illegal. Instead, the Court instructed the district court to exercise its usual role in calculating plaintiffs' recovery. The Court remanded for that purpose.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SAWYER v. ATLAS HEATING AND SHEET-METAL WORKS (May 26, 2011)

On May 18, 2009, Park Bank filed a state-court class action against Atlas Heating and Sheet-Metal Works. It alleged that Atlas' December 9, 2005 unsolicited facsimile violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In March of 2010, after the Act's four-year statute of limitations had run, Park Bank voluntarily dismissed its claim. Isaac Sawyer, another facsimile recipient, was unsuccessful in his attempts to intervene in the suit. Sawyer filed his own class action on March 19. Atlas removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds or to at least limit the action to an individual one. Judge Adelman (E.D. Wis.) denied the motion on the ground that the limitations period was tolled while the Park Bank suit was pending. Atlas appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Flaum and Sykes affirmed. The Court noted that the Supreme Court, in American Pipe, held that the filing of a class action tolls the statute of limitations as to all persons who would have been class members. Atlas contends that American Pipe does not control because: a) the first suit was voluntarily dismissed, b) the first suit was filed in state court, and c) the first class was never certified. The Court rejected each of these attempts to distinguish American Pipe. The statute of limitations was tolled and Sawyer's complaint is timely. The Court next addressed whether Sawyer was limited to an individual complaint instead of a class action. The district court had identified a conflict among the circuits on that question. The Court found no conflict. The cases Atlas identified presented not questions related to tolling, but questions related to the preclusive effect of a Rule 23 decision in the earlier case. If, for example, the court in the first case denies certification on numerosity grounds, that ruling would be binding on the later-filed action and preclude class certification. On the other hand, a denial because the class representative was inadequate would not bind other class members from pursuing certification. Here, Park Bank dismissed its complaint before the first court even ruled on certification. Sawyer is free to pursue class certification in his case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

LEE v. COOK COUNTY (March 22, 2011)

Twelve African-American Cook County employees believed that the County discriminated against them on account of their race in making promotions. They filed a charge with the EEOC. The EEOC issued right-to-sue letters in March 2008. The employees brought suit pursuant to Title VII in May of 2008, well within the 90-day window. Judge Castillo (N.D. Ill.) did not think that the twelve plaintiffs belonged in the same suit. So, in a September 18 order, he dismissed the complaint without prejudice and gave each individual plaintiff 40 days within which to file an individual action. But three of the plaintiffs waited over seven months before filing their individual actions. Judge Kendall (N.D. Ill.) and Judge St. Eve (N.D. Ill.) dismissed the individual actions as untimely. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Cudahy and Posner affirmed -- and issued sanctions. The Court first pointed out that there was nothing improper about the original filing. Rule 20 only requires multiple plaintiffs to share a common question of law or fact, which we have here. It does not require that a common question predominate, as do the class action rules. The district court therefore erred when it dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs should have appealed, but they did not. Instead, the plaintiffs waited several months, refiled, and appeal the dismissal of the refiled complaints. So the Court turned to the merits of the actual appeal and agreed with the district courts that refiled actions were untimely. First, the district court's order directing the plaintiffs to file individual actions within 40 days did not extend the statute of limitations or the EEOC filing window. Second, equitable tolling requires a litigant to pursue his rights diligently. Plaintiffs' lawyer did anything but. Third, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the defendants either waived or waited too long to assert the limitations defense. Having resolved the merits of the case against the plaintiffs, the Court turned to their lawyer. It noted his "calamitous handling" of the case in the district court, the "sloppy performance" in the appellate court, his several procedural gaffes, his failure to file required pleadings, his grossly inadequate response to the Court’s order to show cause, and his numerous violations of the Circuit Rules. The Court reprimanded the attorney, fined him $5000, and ordered him to send a copy of the opinion to his clients.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ESTATE OF DOROTHY DAVIS v. WELLS FARGO BANK (January 12, 2011)

In 1999, Dorothy Davis lived in a single-family home in Kankakee, Illinois. She was a widow, she was elderly, and she was African-American. A man approached her and offered to make some repairs to her home – and get a new home loan to pay for them. She ended up borrowing almost $90,000 from Mortgage Express and paying over $30,000 in settlement charges. She sued Mortgage Express. A jury found (apparently in Mortgage Express’ absence) in her favor. The court entered judgment for over $135,000 – a judgment she has since been unable to collect. Before Mortgage Express went out of business, it transferred her loan. The loan is now held by Wells Fargo Bank and serviced by Litton Loan Servicing. Wells Fargo and Litton have continued their attempts to collect on the loan. They proposed a modification, demanded payment, and pursued a foreclosure action. Davis, and now her estate, sued Wells Fargo and Litton. She asserted fraud and unconscionability claims under state law, race discrimination claims under both the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and a claim for violating the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act. Judge Aspen (N.D. Ill.) dismissed all of the claims except the FHA claim, on which he granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Estate appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Evans, Sykes, and Hamilton affirmed. The Estate’s biggest problem lies in the statutes of limitations, which vary from one to five years. There are only three acts that occurred within even the longest of those periods that could support the Estate's claims: Litton's modification proposal, Wells Fargo's failure to tell Davis that it had acquired the mortgage, and Litton's payoff demand. The Court addressed each of the claims in that light. With respect to unconscionability, the allegations must relate to the formation of the contract. None of the allegations within the limitations periods do so -- the claim was properly dismissed. With respect to fraud, a plaintiff must show reliance. The only possible allegation within the limitations period relating to fraud is Wells Fargo's failure to advise Davis of the loan transfer. Assuming that could amount to a fraudulent omission, Davis never alleged that she relied on it -- the claim was properly dismissed. With respect to the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, that statute requires lenders to make certain disclosures in connection with a loan. None of the allegations within the limitations period trigger the disclosure requirements -- the claim was properly dismissed. With respect to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Court stated that that Act prohibits race discrimination against an "applicant," which is further defined as a person who receives an "extension of credit." The Court concluded that Litton's offer to modify the loan, which occurred within the limitations period, was an "extension of credit." Davis further alleged that the offer was racially discriminatory. The Court therefore concluded that the claim should have survived a motion to dismiss. The Court nevertheless affirmed the district court. It found that the defendants would have prevailed on summary judgment for the same reason they did on the FHA claim. Davis simply failed to put forth evidence of discrimination. Finally, the Court considered that FHA claim, the only claim that survived a motion to dismiss in the district court. Davis was given the opportunity, on summary judgment, to come forward with evidence that the defendants discriminated against her on the basis of race. Again, she was limited to conduct occurring within the limitations period. That "evidence" consisted of a) two unsigned and undated affidavits, which the court struck because they did not comply with the rules, b) the declarations of two former Wells Fargo employees, which the court struck because Davis never disclosed the declarants during discovery, and c) Davis' testimony that she believed she was the victim of race discrimination. Davis waived any complaint regarding the affidavits or declarations because she failed to raise any meaningful opposition to the district court’s reasoning on appeal. Her unsubstantiated personal beliefs are simply insufficient to support her claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

YOUNG v. VERIZON'S BELL ATLANTIC CASH BALANCE PLAN (AUGUST 10, 2010)

In 1996, Bell Atlantic replaced its Bell Atlantic Management Pension Plan, a defined annuity pension plan, with the Bell Atlantic Cash Balance Plan. The old pension plan included a lump sum option for certain employees that used an enhanced discount rate. The new Plan contained provision for converting employees' benefits from the pension plan to the new Plan. One key to the conversion was an employee's "transition factor." The transition factor was a multiplier that increased as an employee's age and years of service increased. Unfortunately for Bell Atlantic, the Plan's formula for computing an employee's opening balance contained the transition factor twice. The Plan Summary and all communications to employees described the formula correctly -- using the transition factor only once. The company also recognized the error and corrected it in a 1998 version of the Plan. Cynthia Young retired in 1997 after 32 years of service. After receiving her lump sum benefit, Young sought administrative review. She made two claims: that the company failed to apply the transition factor twice and that the company improperly applied the enhanced discount rate from the earlier pension plan. The company denied Young's claim. Young filed suit pursuant to ERISA § 502(a). The company counterclaimed for equitable reformation to correct the "scrivener's error." Magistrate Judge Denlow (N.D. Ill.) upheld the company's denial of the discount rate claim as not arbitrary and capricious and granted the equitable reformation counterclaim. Young appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum, and Tinder affirmed. The Court first addressed both party's statute of limitations arguments. The parties and the Court agreed that Pennsylvania's four-year limitations period applies. At issue was when the claims accrued. The Court concluded that the complaint and counterclaims were both timely. Young's claim did not accrue until she had a "clear repudiation" of her demand, which occurred in 2005. Although the company knew about the drafting mistake in 1997, the Court concluded that its claim for reformation did not accrue at that time. It was not on notice of the need to reform because it had always treated the second transition factor inclusion as a mistake. It paid benefits and communicated with its employees on that basis. It corrected the mistake and no one complained until Young brought suit. On the merits, the Court noted that § 502(a)(3) of ERISA permits "appropriate equitable relief." Although the Court has never addressed the propriety of equitable reformation, other circuits have and have either concluded that it is available or at least not foreclosed. Relying on those cases and the Court's own cases on ambiguous plan language, the Court concluded that equitable reformation is permitted when there is clear and convincing evidence of a scrivener’s error that does not reflect participants' reasonable expectations. The Court found such evidence present here. It relied on the drafting history, the communications and course of dealing between the company and its employees, the plan statements to participants, and the lack of any complaint until Young. The Court then considered and rejected the traditional equitable defenses raised by Young (good faith, unclean hands, and laches). Finally, the Court used principles of contract construction and interpretation, particularly that specific provisions control general provision, to reject Young's enhanced discount rate claim. The Court found that the most reasonable reading of the Plan required the enhanced rate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASS’N v. MAYFLOWER TRANSIT (August 9, 2010)

Mayflower Transit is in the business of transporting household goods from one location to another. It frequently provides this service by leasing equipment. Mayflower pays the truck's owner-operator a per-mile fee. Federal regulations require Mayflower's trucks to be insured. Mayflower acquires insurance and deducts its cost from the fees it pays the owner-operators. A group of drivers and their trade association filed suit against Mayflower under 49 U.S.C. § 14704(a)(2), contending that Mayflower’s practice violates a federal regulation that prohibits a motor carrier from requiring its drivers to purchase any product or service from it as a condition of its lease. Judge Baker (S.D. Ind.) dismissed some claims on statute of limitations grounds and dismissed the insurance claims on the ground that the deduction did not violate the regulation. The owner-operators appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Williams and Tinder affirmed and remanded. First addressing the limitations issue, the Court noted that § 14705(c) contains a two-year statute of limitations applicable to the administrative proceedings referenced in § 14704(b) but does not mention § 14704(a)(2). The district court applied the two-year statute anyway, concluding that a scrivener's error was responsible for the omission. The Court disagreed. It conceded that the text of the statute was inconsistent with the legislative history and that Congress may have intended a two-year limitations period. Nevertheless, the unambiguous text governs. Since the statute therefore contains no internal statute of limitations, the court concluded that the residual four-year limitations period applies. On the merits, the Court agreed with the district court. The federal regulation requires a motor carrier to purchase insurance -- the regulation is silent on who pays for it. Furthermore, the regulation relied on by the owner-operators only prohibits the lessor from requiring the purchase of a good or service from it. Since Mayflower does not and cannot sell insurance, the insurance deduction cannot be the purchase of a good or service from Mayflower. Finally, another section of the same regulation requires a lessor to specify in its lease the amount of any insurance chargeback. Although the plaintiffs suggest a convoluted reading of that section, the plain meaning of the section is inconsistent with the notion that Mayflower's charge for insurance is prohibited.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

PARISH v. CITY OF ELKHART (July 30, 2010)

A jury found Christopher Parish guilty of the 1996 shooting of Michael Kershner in his Elkhart, Indiana home. Evidence uncovered during his post-conviction proceedings supported a different conclusion: that Kershner was shot in a drug deal and was not even in his home at the time, and that local police threatened witnesses and otherwise fabricated evidence in an effort to falsely convict Parish of the crime. Parish's conviction was vacated in 2006 by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The state then dropped all charges. Parish brought suit pursuant to § 1983, alleging the denial of a fair trial. He also brought state claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). Judge Lozano (N.D. Ind.) dismissed all but the § 1983 fair trial claim on statute of limitations grounds. The court granted Parish's request for a Rule 54(b) certification. Parish appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Flaum, and Williams affirmed in part and reversed in part. Parish conceded, at oral argument, the propriety of the dismissal with respect to the claims for false arrest and false imprisonment. Thus, the only issue on appeal is the dismissal of the IIED claim. The parties agreed that the statute of limitations for the claim is two years from the date it accrued. The Court discussed four cases in its analysis of when an Indiana IIED claim accrues. In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a state prisoner could not bring a § 1983 suit for damages until his conviction was overturned. A judgment would have implied the invalidity of his conviction – the claim was therefore an improper collateral attack on the conviction. An Indiana appellate court followed Heck in Scruggs, when it dismissed false imprisonment claims. The Scruggs plaintiffs, still imprisoned, were also attacking the validity of their convictions. Next, in Wallace, the Supreme Court held that a claim for false arrest or false imprisonment requires a detention without legal process and therefore ends when legal process (e.g., appearance before a magistrate) is granted. The cause of action accrues at the same time -- when the false imprisonment ends. The Court distinguished Heck. Unlike in Heck, the Wallace claim for false imprisonment did not challenge the validity of a conviction. In fact, it did not even require a conviction. Finally, in Johnson, another Indiana appellate court concluded that a false arrest claim accrued at the time of arraignment (when process was granted) but that other claims of emotional discretion and invasion of privacy based on an unreasonable search accrued at the time of the search. Thus, the general rule requires an examination of whether the tort was complete before conviction (e.g., an IIED claim tied to an unreasonable search) or not (e.g. an IIED claim tied to a false conviction). If the former, the claim accrues upon completion of the tort. If the latter, the claim accrues upon completion of the tort unless it directly implicates the validity of the conviction. If it does, the claim does not accrue until the conviction has been lifted. Applying these principles to Parish's claim, the Court concluded that the IIED claims were not complete prior to conviction. In fact, the conviction was an integral part of Parish’s IIED allegations. The Court then concluded that the claim also attacks the validity of Parish's conviction and could not have been brought while the conviction was still outstanding. Parish brought the claim within two years of his exoneration – it is timely.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

KOVACS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (July 29, 2010)

Nancy Kovacs accumulated some federal income tax liability in the early 1990s. She entered into an agreement with the IRS in 1996 to resolve those liabilities. The agreement required her to pay her tax liabilities on time for the ensuing five years. She was unable to do so. The IRS terminated the agreement and reinstated the tax liability in 2001. Several months later, Kovacs filed for bankruptcy. In late 2001, she received a bankruptcy discharge. The discharge included her tax liabilities. Notwithstanding the discharge, the IRS continued to demand payment. It even applied some overpaid taxes to the obligation. Kovacs' attorney originally misunderstood the impact of the discharge, thought she still owed taxes, and attempted to reach another agreement with the IRS. The IRS continued to demand payment until August of 2003, when it informed Kovacs’ attorneys that the tax liability had indeed been discharged. Remarkably, the IRS sent two more letters -- in September of 2003 -- indicating that the taxes were still owed. Kovacs brought an adversary complaint in bankruptcy seeking damages for the attorneys’ fees she incurred. The bankruptcy court denied the IRS' motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds and the case was tried. The bankruptcy court awarded $25,000 in damages. The district court remanded for a determination of the timeliness of the suit under § 7433 of the Internal Revenue Code, which has a two year statute of limitations. It did not address the bankruptcy court's alternative holding that it had authority under §§ 105 and 106 of the bankruptcy code, which has no limitations period. On remand, the bankruptcy court concluded that the cause of action accrued in July 2002 and dismissed her claim for failure to bring it within the two year statute of limitations. Judge Stadtmueller (E.D. Wis.) affirmed. Kovacs appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Flaum and Wood and District Judge St. Eve affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court conceded that § 105 of the Bankruptcy Code has no statute of limitations and grants broad power to a bankruptcy court, including the power to issue any order necessary to carry out the provisions of the code. Nevertheless, § 7433 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that "notwithstanding [§ 105]", it "shall be the exclusive remedy for recovering damages" resulting from the IRS' willful violation of a discharge injunction. The Court concluded that the language of § 7433 was "exceedingly clear" and was thus the only section under which Kovacs could proceed. The Court therefore applied to the section's two year statute of limitations to Kovacs' claims. Her claims accrued when she had a reasonable opportunity to discover the elements of her claim. The Court agreed with the bankruptcy court that Kovacs had that opportunity when she received six notices of intent to levy in July of 2002. The result does not change because of the mistake of her counsel. The Court therefore affirmed the dismissal of the claims based on the July communications. There were two other communications, however, that did occur within the limitations period. The Court found that each of the September letters was a discreet violation of the discharge injunction. They both stated that Kovacs still owed the full amount of her discharged tax liabilities. The Court rejected Kovacs' continuing violation theory because the September letters were not part of a series of acts that resulted in an injury -- they were discrete acts themselves. Kovacs' claims based on those two September letters are not time barred.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

PRIME EAGLE GROUP LTD. v. STEEL DYNAMICS (July 27, 2010)

Prime Eagle Group Ltd. is the assignee of a Thai company that built a steel mill in Thailand in the 1990s. During the mill’s construction, the company ran into difficulty and sought the assistance of Steel Dynamics, an expert in the field. Early on, with Steel Dynamic’s help, the venture was successful and profitable. In the late 1990s, however, when the region was in a recession and steel prices were deflated, Steel Dynamics decided to withdraw. It reported to company management and investors that the mill had design flaws and corrective action would cost $100 million. The company's president did not agree and reported his position to the board of directors. He was fired and investors soon pulled out. Lightning put the mill out of commission in December of 1998. Several years later, after the company came out of reorganization, it commissioned an engineering study. The study concluded that the original design was sound and the mill has operated successfully since -- without an expenditure of $100 million. Prime Eagle brought suit against Steel Dynamics for fraud. Judge Moody (N.D. Ind.) concluded that the suit was untimely under Indiana’s six-year statute of limitations and entered judgment for Steel Dynamics. Prime Eagle appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Manion and Tinder affirmed. Prime Eagle concedes that the suit was filed ten years after the alleged fraud but asserts that the claim did not accrue until the company learned the results of the 2002 report. The Court noted that the only real issue is whether the president's knowledge is imputed to the company. The president wrote a lengthy and comprehensive letter to the board detailing his disagreement with Steel Dynamics. He certainly knew enough at that time for the company to commission an investigation. Instead of doing so, however, the board fired him and did nothing for four years. The general rule is that an employee's knowledge is imputed to the corporation. Only two exceptions to the rule exist, neither of which applies here. The Court rejected Prime Eagle's argument that a third exception -- for an employee who has lost the confidence of the board -- applies and noted that a federal court is the wrong place to even argue for a new exception to state law. Finally, the Court rejected Prime Eagle's equitable tolling argument. Under equitable tolling, Prime Eagle is required to act diligently after the tolling event (its insolvency) terminates. Here, they failed to do so. In fact, they delayed at least four years before taking any action.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

JAY E. HAYDEN FOUNDATION v. FIRST NEIGHBOR BANK (June 22, 2010)

Jay Hayden died in 1985. His will established the Jay E. Hayden Foundation and named Robert Cochonour as executor. Between 1985 and 2001, Cochonour allegedly embezzled from both the Foundation and from accounts belonging to Hayden's mother and his mother’s friend. Cochonour apparently had the cooperation of First Neighbor Bank in carrying out his misdeeds. By 2002, Cochonour admitted that he had stolen some money and had resigned his state court judgeship. The trustees of the Foundation were aware that it no longer had any assets but there was no record of what happened. For several years, Cochonour and the bank took steps to prevent the plaintiffs from learning additional facts. Eventually, in May of 2008, plaintiffs brought a RICO action against the bank, two law firms, and several associated individuals. Judge Reagan (S.D. Ill.) granted defendants' motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Rovner, and Tinder affirmed. The statute of limitations for a RICO claim, stated the Court, is four years and begins to run when the plaintiffs discover or should have discovered the injury and the injurer. Here, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs had significant suspicions by mid-2003 but may not have had sufficient information to bring suit until 2005. If the defendant engages in obstructive conduct, however, that prevents a plaintiff from obtaining sufficient information to file its complaint, the defendant is equitably stopped from pleading the statute of limitations defense for the period of obstructive behavior. Plaintiffs allege that that is what happened here. The Court recognized a split of authority regarding the impact of equitable estoppel on limitations period. Some courts have allowed an extension of a limitations period for the full amount of the delay while others have held that a plaintiff must commence the action as soon as possible after the obstruction ends. The Court decided to apply the latter rule -- particularly in a RICO case where the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of prompt action. In applying the "as soon as possible" rule, the Court stated that plaintiffs had enough information in 2005 to complete their investigation and file suit long before the three years they actually used. Notwithstanding the Court's conclusion that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, it also addressed the defendants' alternative argument that the complaint failed to state a RICO cause of action. The Court concluded that it did not since it did not allege that the defendants used an enterprise (i.e., their conspiracy) to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

LANTZ v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (June 8, 2010)

Kathy Lantz was married to a dentist with whom she filed joint federal tax returns. Unfortunately, she was also married to a dentist who was convicted of Medicare fraud and who the IRS accused of understating their joint tax liability. When she received a notice of tax levy and information from the IRS regarding innocent spouse relief, she allowed her then estranged husband to respond. Although he requested a due process hearing and application for such relief, he died before taking any other action. In 2006, the tax obligation exceeded $1 million. The IRS applied Lantz’ 2005 income tax refund of $3200 to her tax liability. Unemployed and poor, she applied for innocent spouse relief. The IRS rejected her application because she had failed to apply within two years from the notice of intent to levy. The Tax Court invalidated the two-year deadline. The Commissioner appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Flaum, and Williams reversed and remanded. Section 6015 of the Internal Revenue Code provides several avenues of relief to innocent spouses. Subsection (b) relief requires that the spouse have had no reason to know of the understatement. Subsection (c) relief requires that the spouse no longer be married to the person with whom he or she filed. Both subsections (b) and (c) contain a statutory two-year limitations period. Subsection (f), under which Lantz applied, contains no statutory limitations period. It provides that the IRS may grant innocent spouse relief when it is not available under either subsection (b) or (c) and is otherwise equitable under all the facts and circumstances. The Treasury Department, by regulation, imposed a two-year deadline on subsection (f). The Court found nothing improper with the Department's action. First of all, the fact that Congress did not include a limitations period does not mean that it intended the statute not have one. The Court noted that borrowing a statute of limitations from another statute is a common judicial practice – so common, in fact, that Congress can be assumed to endorse it. Second, the subsection does not even require the IRS to grant relief. Since it can deny relief altogether, it can decide to deny relief to late claimants. Finally, the subsection itself begins with the phrase "under procedures prescribed" by the Treasury Department. That congressional delegation of authority to the Department certainly allows it to set a deadline for an application.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

UNITED STATES v. 5443 SUFFIELD TERRACE (June 9, 2010)

Customs officials first discovered Richard Connors smuggling Cuban cigars in 1996. They confiscated over 1100 cigars from him as he attempted to enter the United States. He continued to smuggle. He continued to get caught. On March 15, 1997, local police confiscated more cigars from Connors' home at 5443 Suffield Terrace in Skokie, Illinois. They turned them over to federal officials the following day. Finally, in late 1999, federal officials again seized hundreds of cigars from the Suffield Terrace home. Connors was convicted of several offenses. On March 14, 2002, the United States filed a civil forfeiture action to seize Connors' house. They alleged two grounds: that the house was paid for with proceeds of the smuggling operation and that the house was used to facilitate the smuggling operation. Connors moved to dismiss, arguing that the five-year statute of limitations began to run in 1996, when the United States first discovered his smuggling activity. Judge Gettleman (N.D. IL) denied the motion and granted summary judgment to the United States. Connors appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Kanne, and Rovner affirmed. The civil forfeiture statute requires that an action be filed within five years "after the time when the alleged offense was discovered." The Court found the meaning of "alleged offense" unambiguous. It refers to the offense that gives rise to the right of forfeiture. Where there are several such offenses, nothing in the statute prohibits a forfeiture action when at least one of the offenses falls within the five-year period of limitations. The civil forfeiture action in this case is based on the March 15, 1997 offense. The action is therefore not time-barred. On the merits, the Court found that Connors waived the argument that he had additional sources of income not considered by the court because he failed to raise it properly below.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

CHANG v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORP. (March 26, 2010)

A number of residents of Taiwan brought suit against manufacturers of clotting factors. They allege that the defendants improperly processed donated blood in California and continued to sell it in foreign countries after they knew it was contaminated. The plaintiffs are mainly hemophiliacs who were infected with HIV from the contaminated clotting factors. The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants fraudulently induced a settlement agreement and they allege a breach of the settlement agreement. The district court dismissed the claims, some on the merits as untimely and others pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Evans, and Tinder affirmed. The Court first addressed the dismissals on the merits. It approved the district court’s conclusion that the claims were untimely both because they were filed outside the statute of limitations period and because the California court would apply the Taiwanese 10 year statute of repose (the plaintiffs were infected in the 1980s). Although the plaintiffs assert that their claims arose in California, the Court disagreed. The rule in California is there is no tort without an injury -- and the injuries occurred in Taiwan. A California court would apply the statute of repose either under its own “borrowing” statute or under a more general "balancing of interests" approach to conflict of laws. The Court next addressed the breach of settlement agreement claim which the district court dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds. The Court found that the relevant clause in the settlement agreement was ambiguous and that extrinsic evidence would be necessary. Most of the people with relevant evidence live in Taiwan. In addition, Taiwan law makes it difficult to gather evidence in Taiwan for use in another country. The Court found nothing that would favor the case being tried in United States – dismissal was proper. Another claim that was dismissed on forum non-conveniens grounds is the individual claim by a woman who claims to have been infected by her boyfriend. Although all the same considerations favored the dismissal of this claim, the Court examined it more closely because of the possibility the claim would be time-barred if brought in Taiwan. Dismissal under forum non-conveniens is improper if the other forum is inadequate and will not provide a fair hearing. Here, however, the California court would apply the Taiwanese limitations period just as the Taiwanese court would. Since the statute of limitations would be the same and the convenience factors all favor Taiwan, the Court affirmed the dismissal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

IN RE: MARCHFIRST (December 21, 2009)

CIT Communications Finance Corp. leased telephone equipment to marchFIRST beginning in 2000. After marchFIRST filed for bankruptcy in 2001, CIT sought the return of its equipment. The Trustee denied that marchFIRST held any CIT property. In 2002, CIT filed an administrative claim, asserting that the Trustee breached his fiduciary duty. In May of 2007, CIT filed a lawsuit against the Trustee for breach of fiduciary duty. The bankruptcy court, and the district court, both agreed that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. CIT appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer and Sykes and District Judge Simon affirmed. Everyone agreed that the claims were governed by the five-year statute of limitations -- they did not agree on when the claim accrued. The Court cited the general rule that tort claims accrue when a party sustains an injury but added that Illinois recognizes the discovery rule. That principle extends the time of accrual until the time when a party both knows he is injured and that the injury was wrongfully caused. Here, CIT begin demanding its equipment back as early as July of 2001 and the Trustee refused to return it as early as November of 2001. CIT was on notice of its injury and its claim. Even if the Trustee's breach of his fiduciary duty continued into the five-year period before the filing of the complaint, this is not the type of tort where a limitations period begins to run only after the cessation of the tortious conduct. When a tort arises out of a breach of contract, the statute begins to run at the time of the breach or its discovery.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

IN RE: ROSE (October 7, 2009)

Mercantile National Bank of Indiana sued Jasper- Newton Utility in state court for breach of contract and specific performance. Judgment was entered in Mercantile's favor for approximately $160,000. James Rose was a 50% shareholder in Jasper- Newton. A few weeks later, Rose and the other shareholder sold Jasper-Newton to WSCI. The shareholders indemnified WSCI for the liability to Mercantile. In proceedings to collect on the judgment, Mercantile sought leave to amend its complaint to add a claim under the Indiana Crime Victim Compensation Act. The court entered judgment in Mercantile's favor of almost $600,000. The state appellate court affirmed on the merits. The state Supreme Court reversed, holding that Mercantile could not assert a new CVCA claim in supplemental proceedings to collect the judgment. Rose filed a petition for bankruptcy in the meantime. Mercantile filed an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court challenging the dischargeability of its CVCA claim. The bankruptcy court granted Rose's motion to dismiss Mercantile's complaint, concluding that the CVCA claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court. Mercantile appeals. During the appeal, the state appellate court ruled that the CVCA claim was commenced within the appropriate limitations period.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum and Williams and District Judge Kapala reversed. The Court looked to the various opinions of the state courts to decide whether Mercantile filed within the statutory period. Although the state Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order granting Mercantile leave to amend, it did so because it was improper to file the claim in supplemental proceedings. The court, in its opinion, specifically stated that Mercantile could pursue the claim in some other manner. After remand, the state Court of Appeals concluded that the claim was commenced when Mercantile moved to amend its complaint and was therefore filed within the limitations period. The Court concurred with the reasoning of the state appellate court in concluding that the claim was properly commenced within the limitations period.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 PRINCE v. STEWART (September 2, 2009)

The Chicago Teachers Union fired Earl Prince from his job. Prince filed an administrative discrimination charge. He then brought an action pro se for employment discrimination under Title VII before he received any response from the Illinois Department of Human Rights or the EEOC. The district court dismissed the complaint because Prince had not yet received a right-to-sue letter. Several months later, after Prince had received the letter, the district court granted his motion to reopen the case. The court vacated the order, however, a few days later at Prince's request. Months later, on the last day to sue, Prince again moved to reopen the case. This time, the judge turned him down -- and it was too late to file a new complaint. Prince appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Coffey and Manion reversed and remanded. The Court recognized Prince's mistake when he followed up the first order reopening his case with a request to reinstate the dismissal. He was simply going to be out of the jurisdiction for a short time and need not have worried about his temporary unavailability. However, the Court also recognized that no one was prejudiced by his mistake. If the second motion to reopen was filed in a timely fashion, the Court could not see any reason why it should not have been granted. The Court concluded that the district court’s lulling of the pro se litigant into believing that he did not have to refile his complaint amounted to equitable tolling.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

MIDDLETON v. CITY OF CHICAGO (August 24, 2009)

From 1960 until 1989, Charles Middleton served in the Air Force. On two occasions in the early 1990s, he applied for positions with the City of Chicago. He was not hired for either position. In 2007, Middleton sued the City pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). He alleged that the City refused to employ him on account of his military service. The district court applied the four year "catch-all" statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 1658 (a) and dismissed his complaint. Middleton appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Rovner and Wood affirmed. The Court considered not only the application of § 1658 (a) to the claim but also the provisions of the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act (VBIA), enacted after the appeal. Section 1658 was enacted in 1990. Its purpose, said the Court, was to minimize the borrowing of state statutes of limitations for federal causes of action. It provided a four-year statute of limitations for any federal claim brought under a later-enacted statute, if the statute had no expressed limitations period. USERRA was enacted four years later and contained no expressed statute of limitations. The Court concluded, based on the plain meaning of the statute, that the four-year limitations applied. In doing so, it rejected the Middleton's arguments that: 1) the section did not apply because USERRA was simply an amendment of an earlier-enacted statute, and 2) the legislative history indicated Congress' intent that no statute of limitations apply. The Court turned its attention to the VBIA. The VBIA eliminates any limitations period for a USERRA cause of action. The Court noted the "well-established" rule that a statute should not be applied retroactively unless Congress' intent is clear. Nothing in the statute addresses retroactivity. The Court concluded that the statute should not be given retroactive effect. Finally, the court rejected Middleton's argument that the VBIA was merely a clarification of existing law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

BROOKS v. ROSS (August 20, 2009)

Victor Brooks served on the Illinois Prison Review Board ("PRB"). One of the functions of the PRB is to make certain parole decisions. In 2002, the parole request of inmate Harry Aleman came before the PRB. The hearing was unusual both because of Aleman's notoriety for murder and bribery and because a Department of Corrections employee provided a statement in support of his parole. Brooks cast the only vote in support of parole. Because of the high profile of the situation, the department began an investigation. The investigation resulted in several reports, some of which accused Brooks of accepting bribes to vote in favor of parole. Eventually, Brooks and the department employee were indicted for their conduct -- and later acquitted. Brooks filed suit under § 1983 and state law against numerous state officials, alleging claims of deprivation of due process, malicious prosecution, conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. Brooks appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Wood and Tinder affirmed. The Court chose to address the claims under principles of timeliness, sovereign immunity and pleading requirements. First, a § 1983 claim borrows its statute of limitations from a state personal injury action. Here, that limitation is two years. Brooks' complaint was filed within two years of his acquittal, but more than two years after his indictment. The malicious prosecution and federal due process claims both require an allegation of acquittal and are therefore timely. The federal and state conspiracy claims and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim complain of his prosecution. An acquittal is not a pleading element of any of them. Under Illinois law, the Court concluded that the indictment was a single overt act that triggered the statute of limitations for those claims. They are therefore time-barred. Second, Illinois law requires tort suits against the state to be brought in the Illinois Court of Claims. Although the Court recognized the exception if a state actor exceeds his authority, it concluded that the malicious prosecution claim did not fall within the exception and was therefore barred. Finally, the Court concluded that Brooks' due process claim did not meet the pleading requirements of the Supreme Court's recent opinions in Twombly, Erickson and Iqbal. Under those cases, a plaintiff is required to provide notice of his claim, a court must accept allegations as true unless they fail to provide sufficient notice, and the court need not accept conclusory or abstract allegations. Here, Brooks does provide many specific allegations, but the allegations describe conduct that is just as consistent with legal behavior as it is with illegal behavior. The only allegations that adequately describe illegal behavior merely recite the elements of the cause of action and do not put the defendants on notice of their specific conduct that is alleged to have violated the Constitution or law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

WISCONSIN VALLEY IMPROVEMENT COMPANY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (June 22, 2009)

Wisconsin Valley Improvement Company (“WVIC”) operates dams on the Wisconsin River, some of which are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Years ago, during a license renewal process, the U. S. Forest Service asked the Commission to impose conditions on the WVIC license that would curtail certain flooding on federal land. WVIC claimed that it had prescriptive easements over the federal lands that made the requested conditions inappropriate. In a brief filed with the Commission in February of 1996, the Forest Service explicitly did not concede the easement claim but argued that it had a right to the conditions regardless of the existence of a valid easement. The matter was resolved on the grounds that the existence of an easement was irrelevant. Thus, the issue of the easement’s existence was not resolved. In June of 2008, WVIC filed suit under the Quiet Title Act to establish their flowage easement. The district court concluded that the suit was not filed within the twelve-year statute of limitations of the Quiet Title Act because the claim accrued no later than the filing of the February 1996 brief. It dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. WVIC appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Sykes and Van Bokkelen affirmed, as modified. The Court noted that a claim accrues, for purposes of the Quiet Title Act, when a person knows or reasonably should know that the United States maintains an adverse claim to property. Although the Court recognized that there was no evidence that the Forest Service ever flatly forbade the flooding of its lands, it agreed that its refusal to concede the issue in the Commission briefing was enough to lead a reasonable person to conclude there was a potential dispute. That knowledge is enough to trigger the period of limitations. The Court did take issue with the district court's characterization of the issue as jurisdictional. Subject matter jurisdiction is granted by federal law -- statutes of limitations do not detract from a federal court’s authority to decide the issues. The Court affirmed the judgment as modified to a dismissal with prejudice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

THE CANCER FOUNDATION v. CERBERUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (March 19, 2009)

In the late 1990s, Martin Lapides and his corporate empire were suffering. He obtained a $23 million line of credit from the Gordon Brothers Group and others. Soon after, Gordon Brothers, working with Lapides' chief financial officer, began to wrest control of one of the corporations away from Lapides. Once Gordon Brothers and the others obtained control of the corporation, they placed it in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy triggered a whole host of financial troubles for Lapides. One of the victims of these troubles was the Cancer Foundation, when one of Lapides’ companies was unable to fulfill an $80 million pledge. Several individual investors in Lapides’ corporations filed suit and obtained a $7 million judgment against Lapides personally. The Cancer Foundation, Lapides and others who suffered harm from the conduct of Gordon Brothers filed suit in 2007 under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). The district court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it was barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Manion and Evans affirmed. The Court noted the "generous" four year statute of limitations for a RICO cause of action runs from the time when a plaintiff discovers the harm. A plaintiff does not have to know that the harm is actionable to begin the limitations period. The Court agreed with the district court in holding that the complaint was barred. The conduct complained of was complete an entire decade before the suit began. The Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the statute did not begin to run until an article in Forbes alerted them to the alleged conspiracy. The plaintiffs were clearly aware of their injury, even if they were not aware of all of its particular elements, well outside of the limitations period.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMM. v. KOENIG (February 26, 2009)

James Koenig was the Chief Financial Officer of Waste Management, Inc. In the early 1990s, after years of acceptable growth, the company’s financial performance began to suffer. Koenig devised several accounting strategies that made the company appear more profitable than it was. Koenig resigned in January of 1997. In October of 1997, the company disclosed in a press release that its financial statements were inaccurate and unreliable. The SEC filed a complaint against Koenig in March of 2002. At trial, the jury found that his accounting strategies were fraudulent. The court imposed a $2.1 million civil penalty, ordered the disgorgement of almost $1 million in bonuses, imposed $1.2 million in pretax interest, and enjoined Koenig from serving as a director of a public company. Koenig appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Manion and Wood affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. The Court first addressed Koenig's statute of limitations argument. Although recognizing that the statute is five years and that more than five years passed between Koenig's resignation and the filing of the complaint, the Court rejected Koenig's argument. Instead, the Court noted that there has long been a special rule for statutes of limitations in fraud cases. A victim of fraud has the full statutory time to file, beginning from the date the wrong came to light or would have with due diligence. Since Koenig's accounting misdeeds were not public until the company issued its press release and Koenig never claimed that the SEC could have known earlier, the complaint was timely. The Court then addressed several trial management objections. It concluded that the lower court did not err in allowing the SEC to put on evidence of the motives of the company's new management. Although originally denying the SEC's motion in limine, the lower court admitted motive evidence after Koenig "opened the door." The court had warned Koenig that it would allow the evidence if Koenig made motive at issue. Second, the Court approved of the trial court’s practice of allowing the jurors to submit questions for witnesses and found no abuse of discretion. Third, the Court found no violation of the discovery or notice rules in the SEC's calling as its witness Koenig’s own expert, whom he did not call. Koenig also complains that the $2.1 million penalty was greater than allowed by the statute. The statute limits a penalty to no greater than the greater of $100,000 or the defendant’s pecuniary gain. The court included pre-judgment interest in its calculation of pecuniary gain. The Court approved of this formula. It held that pecuniary gain is the amount the defendant obtained as a result of his fraudulent accounting practices plus any return he could have made by investing that sum, until its disgorgement. The Court did disagree with the district court's computation of Koenig's bonuses. The company awards bonuses based on increases in the company's earnings over the prior year. Based upon the testimony of the SEC's expert, the Court concluded that the company’s corrected earnings increased from 1991 - 1992. The Court remanded for a recalculation of Koenig’s bonuses and, if necessary, a recalculation of the penalties.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ANDONISSAMY v. HEWLETT-PACKARD CO. (November 7, 2008)

Sanjay Andonissamy, a French citizen of Indian ancestry, began his employment with Hewlett-Packard (“HP”) in April of 2001. He was in the country on an HP-sponsored H-1B visa. [The following is Andonissamy’s version of the story – HP’s version differs greatly] After the events of September 11, 2001, Ken Smith, Andonissamy’s supervisor, began to make derogatory racial, ethnic, and nationalist remarks to and about Andonissamy. Andonissamy frequently complained to Smith’s supervisor. Smith placed Andonissamy on remedial performance plans, allegedly in retaliation for Andonissamy’s complaints about Smith. Andonissamy began taking medication for anxiety and depression in 2002. He was being treated, but his physician never placed him on any restricted work schedule. Andonissamy’s condition worsened in early 2003 after the deaths of his brother and nephew. In May of 2003, Smith made a false report to the company implicating Andonissamy as a security threat. HP fired Andonissamy on June 23, 2003. On September 16, Andonissamy filed an EEOC complaint alleging national origin discrimination. The EEOC dismissed his complaint and issued a right to sue letter. Andonissamy filed a complaint in federal court in April of 2004. In addition to his complaints of national origin discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Andonissamy added a Family and Medical Leave Act count. In November of 2005, Andonissamy added Smith as a defendant on an assault count. The district court dismissed Smith and granted summary judgment to HP. Andonissamy appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed Andonissamy’s Title VII hostile work environment claim. In order to survive summary judgment, Andonissamy had to show that a) he was subjected to unwelcome harassment, b) the harassment was based on his national origin, c) it was severe and pervasive enough to amount to a hostile and abusive environment, and d) there exists a basis for employer liability. The Court did not address the first three elements because it found no basis for employer liability. An employer can be vicariously liable for the conduct of a supervisor but can only be liable for the conduct of a co-worker if the company was negligent in discovering or remedying the harassment. A supervisor for purposes of Title VII is the person with the ability to affect the terms and conditions of the plaintiff’s employment. Smith, although he was Andonissamy’s “supervisor” in the sense that he directed his performance, was not a Title VII supervisor. There was no evidence that Smith was able "to hire, fire, promote, demote, discipline or transfer" Andonissamy. In order to hold HP liable for the acts of Smith as co-worker, Andonissamy had to establish that he complained or that the discrimination was so pervasive that HP’s knowledge could be inferred. Although Andonissamy did complain to Smith’s supervisor, he did not specifically complain about national origin discrimination. The Court agreed with the district court that Andonissamy therefore did not make out a Title VII claim. With respect to his companion § 1981 claim, the Court stated that a plaintiff can proceed under the direct or indirect method. The direct method requires evidence that an adverse employment action was based on the plaintiff's national origin. The Court found no such evidence in the record. Under the indirect method, a plaintiff must establish, among other elements, that he was meeting his employer’s legitimate performance expectations. The Court noted that the record contained numerous references to Andonissamy’s performance problems. The Court concluded that Andonissamy was therefore unable to establish a § 1981 claim under either method.

Andonissamy’s retaliation claim could also be established under the direct or indirect method. The indirect method for retaliation, like discrimination, contains an element that Andonissamy was meeting HP’s performance obligations. The Court rejected Andonissamy’s indirect method for establishing his retaliation claim for the same reason it rejected it for his discrimination claim. Under the direct method, Andonissamy had to establish that: a) he engaged in statutorily protected activity, b) his employer took an adverse employment action, and c) there was a causal connection between the two. The Court held that his complaints to HP did not include complaints of national origin discrimination. He was thus unable to establish the statutorily protected activity element. The Court concluded that he failed to establish a retaliation claim under either method. With respect to the FMLA count, the Court noted that Andonissamy never asked for any leave and did not exhibit any dramatic changes in behavior that would have put HP on notice of a need for leave. The Court agreed with the district court that Andonissamy failed to meet his burden under the FMLA.

Finally, the Court addressed Andonissamy’s assault claim against Smith. The assault claim was added to the case after the statute of limitations on the claim had expired. Andonissamy argued that the claim related back to the original claim and was thus permissible under FRCP 15(c). The Court affirmed the dismissal, stating that a claim against a new defendant relates back only when there is a case of mistaken identity. Since Smith supervised Andonissamy for years, that cannot be the case here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

DOMINQUEZ v. HENDLEY (September 30, 2008)

Alejandro Dominguez was fifteen when a neighbor accused him of sexual assault. He was convicted of home invasion and sexual assault and spent four years in prison before he was paroled. Dominguez always maintained his innocence. He eventually proved his innocence through DNA testing. Not only did he succeed in getting his conviction vacated, the Governor pardoned him. Dominguez brought this action against an investigating police officer and the City of Waukegan under 42 U.S.C. §1983. He alleged that the officer (a) withheld exculpatory material from the prosecutor and defense, (b) conducted an improper and prejudicial identification, and (c) fabricated evidence. At trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Dominguez in excess of $9 million. Hendley and the City appeal.
 

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Ripple, and Wood affirmed. The appellants raised numerous issues, none of which convinced the panel of reversible error.

• The Court rejected the Statute of Limitations argument as the complaint was filed within two years of the date the conviction was vacated. One who brings a §1983 claim for violation of due process based on denial of a fair trial must first have the conviction vacated. The limitations period runs from that date. The appellants’ argument that it should run from the arraignment would have merit only if the complaint was based on false arrest rather than unfair trial.
• The Court rejected the argument that Hendley was entitled to qualified immunity because Dominguez did not prove that Hendley proximately caused the alleged violations. In the eyes of the Court, the argument was not one of qualified immunity, but simply an attack on the sufficiency of the evidence of the violations. The Court found sufficient evidence to support the verdict.
• The Court found as irrelevant whether Dominguez proved that the arrest was without probable cause. Again, Hendley was misreading the complaint as one simply attacking the arrest.
• Appellants’ next argument was that Dominguez did not properly plead or prove that Hendley failed to provide exculpatory evidence. Any supposed flaw in the pleading was overcome by Hendley’s failure to object and presentation of affirmative evidence on the issue. The panel had no difficulty in finding sufficient evidence in the record to support the verdict.
• Appellants’ argued a number of errors in the instructions. Some were rejected because they were based on the appellants’ erroneous “false arrest” theory. Others were addressed to causation. The Court found that the district court’s instructions on proximate cause were sufficient.
• The appellants’ submitted a litany of supposed trial errors, the cumulative effect of which they claim deprived them of a fair trial. The Court never had to address the cumulative effect of any errors because, in fact, they held that not one of the items raised amounted to error.
   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ABENA v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. (September 16, 2008)

Albert Abena worked as a dentist for American Dental Partners, Inc. (“ADP”). ADP provided long-term disability benefits to eligible employees through a plan administered by Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (“MetLife”). An employee seeking benefits had to file a “Proof of Disability” within three months of the end of an “Elimination Period” (a ninety day period from the date of disability during which benefits were not paid). The Plan provided that no legal action could be filed before the sixtieth day after the filing of the Proof of Disability or after three years from the date Proof of Disability had to be filed. Abena submitted a Proof of Disability on October 23, 2000. He asserted that his disability commenced on May 16, 2000. MetLife approved the claim in early 2001 and began paying benefits. After learning that Abena was again working as a dentist, MetLife reviewed his claim and notified him on August 8, 2002 that his benefits would be terminated. Abena took advantage of an internal appeals process. MetLife affirmed its decision on April 16, 2003. Abena filed suit on April 17, 2006 under ERISA against ADP and MetLife. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that the suit was not timely filed. Abena appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner, and Evans affirmed. The Court agreed with the court below that the issue was controlled by the Court’s 1997 decision in Doe v. Blue Cross Blue Shield United of Wisconsin. In Doe, the Court noted that ERISA did not contain a Statute of Limitations and that the normal practice would be to borrow a limitations period from a closely analogous statute. It also held that a shorter contractual limitations period would be enforced if it was reasonable. Doe dealt with an employer-sponsored health plan. Like the ADP plan, the Doe plan provided that a claimant had to file for reimbursement within ninety days of the date of service and that the claimant could not initiate a suit after three years from the last day a claim could be filed. The plan also required a claimant to pursue an internal appeals process. The appeals process in Doe was concluded with seventeen months left in the three year limitations period. Particularly given that the claimant was represented by counsel, the Court held that the seventeen months was reasonable and enforceable. In applying Doe to Abena’s situation, the three year period expired in November of 2003. MetLife notified him of its affirmance of termination of benefits in April of 2003. Abena, therefore, had seven months to file suit. Abena argues that Doe was an initial claim case and his is a denial of previously granted benefits and therefore distinguishable. The Court agreed that the limitations provision may be better suited to an initial claim but did not see that as a reason to depart from Doe’s holding. The Court also agreed with Abena that a situation could arise in which benefits were paid for thirty nine months before termination, leaving no time to bring suit. Unfortunately for Abena, the Court’s view was that the possibility of that result did not invalidate the limitations period or make a seven month period unreasonable – it merely would have made the application of the provision in that case unreasonable. Abena, too, was represented by counsel. In those circumstances, the Court held that a seven month period was reasonable and enforceable. 
  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link