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

HICKS v. AVERY DREI, LLC (August 17, 2011)

Chance Felling owned and operated Avery Drei, LLC, a hotel management company. In 2006, Avery Drei was constructing a hotel near Indianapolis, Indiana. Lisa Hicks began working as a security guard at the hotel construction site in July of 2006. The hotel opened in October and she became a front desk clerk. During her stint as a security guard, Felling paid her in cash. Once she became a desk clerk, she received her regular wages by check. After Hicks' employment was terminated, she brought suit against Avery and Felling. She sought overtime wages and accrued vacation pay. The case languished for several years until February of 2010, when the district court set a June 2010 trial date. In February, Hicks asked Felling and Avery to supplement certain discovery responses. The defendants failed to respond until ordered to do so by the court in May. Then, they supplemented their answers to the requests identified by Hicks and also supplemented their response to an interrogatory that asked them to identify all cash payments to Hicks. Their original response identified seven cash payments, all while Hicks was working as a security guard. Their supplemental response added six additional payments, all while Hicks was working as a desk clerk. Hicks moved to bar any evidence of the additional payments, claiming the late notice was “trial by ambush.” The district court denied the request. At trial, Judge Magnus-Stinson (S.D. Ind.) granted a directed verdict on the vacation pay claims and on the security guard part of her overtime claim. The jury returned a verdict against Hicks on the desk clerk part of her overtime claim. At Hicks' request, the court waived transcription fees relating to the overtime claim but refused to waive with respect to that portion of the record relating to the vacation pay claim. Hicks appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Cudahy (concurring in part and concurring in the judgment), Flaum, and Kanne affirmed. On appeal, Hicks challenges the directed verdict on the vacation pay claim, challenges the partial directed verdict on the security guard overtime claim, and challenges the district court's refusal to exclude the evidence of additional cash payments. The Court concluded that the vacation pay claim was frivolous. Hicks admitted that she and Felling had an agreement that she would earn vacation time only after she had worked for a year. Her contention that Indiana law requires pro-rata vacation pay from day one in the absence of a written company policy to the contrary is simply wrong. Any agreement to the contrary, which is admittedly present here, is sufficient. The Court turned to the cash payment evidence. It noted that it would normally review such a ruling for abuse of discretion. Here, however, Hicks did not provide transcripts of the argument or ruling on the motion in limine. Without a meaningful basis on which to review the ruling, the Court concluded that Hicks forfeited her challenge. It also chose not to conduct a full plain error review, since it could identify no prejudice -- no extraordinary circumstances -- no miscarriage of justice. The Court turned to the security guard overtime claim. In order to prevail, Hicks had to prove that her employer was covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The district court concluded that she was "engaged in commerce" while a desk clerk, and therefore covered by the Act, but was not while working as a security guard. Hicks argued that she was covered because Felling's operation of several businesses made him an "enterprise engaged in commerce" under the Act. The test for enterprise coverage is that the businesses must be engaged in related activities, under a unified operation, have a common business purpose, and engage in $500,000 of business annually. The district court found that Hicks’ proffered common business purpose -- a profit motive -- did not satisfy the Act's requirements. The Court noted that Hicks advanced a different theory on appeal. It found that argument forfeited. With respect to the profit motive argument, the Court agreed with the district court that it was not enough to amount to enterprise coverage. Finally, the Court rejected the argument that the jury should have been allowed to decide whether Felling Hotels had earnings above the $500,000 threshold because Felling testified that it was possible. Felling Hotels was not a defendant, Felling Hotels was not her employer, and Hicks presented no affirmative evidence of its gross revenue.

Judge Cudahy thought that Felling’s admission against interest that Felling Hotel could have had revenue exceeding $500,000 should have been enough to avoid the directed verdict. But since Hicks never explained how Felling Hotels being subject to the FLSA related to the defendants’ liability, he concurred in the result.

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

HOSKINS v. DART (January 20, 2011)

Joshua Hoskins had a number of complaints about the way he was treated in an Illinois prison. They included the use of excessive force, the denial of medication, and the inadequate processing of grievances. He brought five separate complaints under § 1983 against the Cook County  Sheriff and prison officials. He used a court-issued form for each of his complaints. The form contained a section which required him to list any prior lawsuits that he had filed. Hoskins listed none although he had filed three earlier civil rights lawsuits and, indeed, was still litigating them. The form contained several notices that severe sanctions, including dismissal, could result from a failure to fill out the forms correctly. During screening, the district court discovered the omission. Judge Manning (N.D. Ill.) concluded that the omissions were fraudulent and dismissed the complaints with prejudice. Hoskins appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Tinder, and Hamilton affirmed. First, the Court found no clear error in the district court's finding of fraud. Although Hoskins claimed that the error was innocent in that it was based on another inmate's instructions, the court was well within its rights to reject that explanation. Second, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's choice of sanction. Courts generally have significant discretion in imposing sanctions on those who violate its rules. Here, the district court considered lesser sanctions but chose dismissal because of the inadequacy of monetary sanctions in a pauper proceeding, the importance of the information requested in administering the three strike rule, and the multiple warnings on the form itself of the consequences of dishonesty. 

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

WICKENS v. SHELL OIL CO. (August 31, 2010)

Daniel and Pamela Wickens owned a small parcel of land in central Indiana that had previously been the site of a Shell gasoline station. During preparations for the sale of the parcel, they discovered that the soils were contaminated. Their attorney, Mark Shere, began negotiations with Shell -- under the Indiana Underground Storage Tank Act (the “Act”), a person who takes steps to remedy soil contamination caused by an underground storage tank may be reimbursed by the owner and may recover his attorneys' fees if he brings a successful suit. When a neighbor's property (also the site of a former gasoline station -- but not owned by Shell) was also found to be contaminated, the parties fought over the source and responsibility for the contamination. The Wickenses brought suit in early 2005. The district court denied Shell's summary judgment motion, concluding that it probably bore full responsibility for the contamination. Although the Wickenses continued to control the investigation and rack up remediation costs and attorneys' fees, the parties could not seem to reach a settlement. The court adopted a three month freeze on the parties' liability for each other's fees and costs in early 2007 in an attempt to foster a resolution. She also instructed the parties to select and retain an independent consultant to investigate the properties. Notwithstanding the court's order, the parties continued to incur substantial fees and costs during and after the freeze. The parties finally reached an agreement -- Shell purchased the property, made a payment for property damages, and agreed that the Wickenses were entitled to their costs and fees. They left the calculation up to the court. Judge Barker (S.D. Ind.) awarded all of the Wickenses' costs and fees up to the point of her freeze order, after which she disallowed all costs (with the exception of some corrective action costs pursuant to a state work plan) and fees. On post-judgment motions, the court a) deducted the amount of fees billed as attorney services by Shere’s wife, a non-attorney, and b) admonished Shere for concealing the fact that his fees were largely paid by an insurance company throughout the litigation but granted Shell no relief. Shell appeals. Shere (after being allowed to appear as a real party in interest) cross-appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Bauer and Wood and District Judge Kennelly affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. The only issues on appeal relates to the award of expert costs and attorneys' fees. The Court first concluded that the lower court correctly applied a statutory purpose test for calculating a fee award under the Act. Second, the Court ruled that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the statutory purpose was satisfied as of January 2007. The Court rejected Shell's suggestions that an earlier date was appropriate and the Wickenses's suggestions that a later date was required. Next, the Court upheld (with a small clerical error reversed and remanded) the deduction for fees incurred by Shere’s wife. There was nothing wrong with the her time entries. They could have been billed as non-attorney time -- but were improperly billed as attorney time. Finally, the Court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in its award of expert costs after January 2007. On Shere’s cross-appeal, the Court a) found no abuse of discretion in denying prejudgment interest, b) concluded that Shell suffered no prejudice from Shere’s insurance concealment and found no error in the court's denial of relief, and c) refused to consider Shere’s complaint that the district court was unduly critical of his litigation conduct.

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

SUPERL SEQUOIA LIMITED v. THE CARLSON CO. (August 11, 2010)

In preparation for a Martha Stewart promotion, Macy's solicited bids for the furniture required to create the promotion settings and its installation. Carlson Company, a Wisconsin furniture manufacturer, wanted to bid but lacked sufficient capacity. Superl Sequoia, a Hong Kong manufacturer, and Carlson agreed to work together. Sequoia agreed to provide most of the furniture -- Carlson agreed to install the furniture and to fix or replace furniture, as necessary. They also agreed to split the profits 50-50. Sequoia quoted a $3.4 million price to Carlson. Carlson marked up the quote, added its anticipated cost, and submitted a $5 million bid. Macy's accepted the bid, was satisfied with the work, and paid the invoice. Carlson only paid Sequoia $2 million, however, claiming that it spent more on replacements and repairs for late or substandard furniture than it had anticipated. Sequoia brought an action for breach of contract. Judge Crabb (W.D. Wis.) concluded that Sequoia breached the contract because of late and substandard deliveries and that Carlson could recover its replacement and repair costs. She then held a bench trial to calculate those costs. She disregarded the $3.4 million quote, instead demanding that Sequoia provide evidence of its actual costs. At trial, the court first concluded that Sequoia's costs were $2.2 million and that Carlson's were $.4 million -- entitling each to approximately $1.15 million in profit. But the court then added that Carlson was entitled to an additional $1.16 million to cover its extra expenses and entered judgment for Carlson for approximately $10,000. Sequoia appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook, Circuit Judge Kanne, and District Judge Kennelly vacated and remanded. The Court first concluded that the district court's calculations of damage amounts were not clearly erroneous. On the other hand, the Court questioned two legal decisions of the trial court. The first was the court's allowance of the $1.16 million in replacement and repair costs to Carlson, which was calculated to include overhead and profit. Although the agreement of the parties was documented in a group of e-mails without a formal contract, the Court concluded that the parties agreed that only Carlson's out-of-pocket repair and replacement costs were recoverable. The second legal decision addressed by the Court was the district court's treatment of the $3.4 million bid. Again interpreting a number of e-mails documenting the agreement with some difficulty, the Court disagreed with that treatment. First, the Court noted that Carlson accepted the quote long before the relevant e-mail exchange. The quote was the basis upon which Sequoia joined the venture -- Carlson cannot retroactively ignore it. Second, the quote was given as a fixed amount -- both the floor and the ceiling on Sequoia's costs. The later e-mails should not be viewed as fundamentally changing the structure of the deal. The Court remanded with instructions to the district court to recalculate the judgment.

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

MARSHALL JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. C.D. (August 2, 2010)

Minor student C.D. was a kindergarten student when he was diagnosed with EDS, a genetic disease affecting the joints. He had poor upper body strength and stability accompanied by chronic pain. The school district evaluated him pursuant to the Individuals with Disability Education Act (“IDEA”) and began providing special education services to C.D. in his gym class. The district developed an Individualized Education Program ("IEP") pursuant to which C.D. received adaptive physical education, physical and occupational therapy, and other aids and programming modifications. The following year, the district developed a new IEP. Among other changes, the new IEP required regular consultation between his adaptive gym teacher and his regular gym teacher. When C.D. reached second grade, the district again reevaluated his entitlement to special education and determined that he no longer met the criteria -- that he had an ailment that adversely affects his educational performance and that he needs special education. The district concluded that he met neither criterion. C.D.'s parents sought administrative review. After a lengthy administrative hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that C.D. was still eligible for special education. Judge Crabb (W.D. Wis.) affirmed. The school district appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy (concurring), Manion, and Williams reversed and remanded. The Court first took some care in identifying the precise issue on appeal in what it viewed as a complicated case. The Court specifically noted that, notwithstanding significant discussion and attention to C.D.'s academic performance, the only issue was whether he was entitled to special education in his gym classes. In order to qualify as a "child with a disability" under the Act, C.D. must have a health condition that adversely affects his educational performance and thus requires special education. The Court found little evidence in the record addressing the first prong and indications that the ALJ misapplied the test. There was evidence in the record that C.D.'s health condition could affect his educational performance and the ALJ did conclude that C.D.'s health condition could affect his educational performance. But there was little probative evidence that it actually did affect his performance – which is what the Act requires. The Court thus concluded that C.D. was unable to satisfy the first prong of the Act's test. Alternatively, the Court addressed the second prong of the test -- whether C.D. needed special education. The Court reviewed in detail the evidence presented on that issue and concluded that the ALJ impermissibly discounted testimony of C.D.’s special education gym teacher and that the record lacked substantial evidence or a reasoned basis for the finding that C.D. needed special education in gym.

Judge Cudahy concurred. Although he joined in the majority's result, he expressed the need for caution in overruling findings of fact based on witness reliability and in balancing the weight to be given medical professionals versus education professionals.

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

AMERICAN BOAT COMPANY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (October 1, 2009)

David Jump is a wealthy, St. Louis businessman with a variety of business interests. In 1996, he consulted with a Chicago attorney to develop an estate plan. The attorney created a family trust and reorganized many of Jump's businesses into limited partnerships. He also recommended a tax shelter, and provided the firm's opinion of its validity. A few years later, one of Jump’s towboats caused an accident that almost resulted in damages that could have exceeded his insurance coverage. He again sought advice from his Chicago lawyer, this time on how to limit his liability. The lawyer again designed and executed a restructuring of his companies. He again also recommended a series of tax shelter transactions. Beginning in 1999, Jump claimed substantial tax benefits. Over time, other lawyers and accountants became familiar with these transactions and raised no objections. The IRS eventually caught wind of these shelters and determined them to be illegal. It discovered the involvement of one of Jump's partnerships during its investigation and determined that the shelter was invalid. It issued a Notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment, adjusting the partnership's basis of its towboats, and imposed an accuracy-related penalty of forty percent. On judicial review, the court agreed with the IRS that the transactions were invalid but held that the penalty should not have been imposed. The penalty can only be imposed if the partnership had no reasonable cause for its underpayment. The court found reasonable cause. The United States appeals the latter ruling.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Kanne affirmed. The Court first addressed the issue of the district court's jurisdiction, because of a recent decision in the Court of Federal Claims holding that the reasonable cause exception relied on by the district court cannot be considered during a partnership-level proceeding, which that was. Although agreeing with the fundamental premise that a partner may not raise a partner-level defense at a partnership-level proceeding, the Court concluded that a partnership can raise reasonable cause on behalf of the partnership. Thus, the Court found that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the partnership's claims that it had reasonable cause for its position. On the merits, the Court stated that reasonable cause depends on all the facts and circumstances, including the taxpayer's efforts to properly assess its liability. The Court first rejected the government's position that it is always unreasonable to rely exclusively on a financial advisor who incorporates a tax shelter into a plan for restructuring. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding reasonable cause: Jump sought advice from a reputable (at the time) attorney, he had no reason to believe the advice was wrong, the tax shelters were component parts of larger corporate restructurings, two reputable accounting firms raised no objections, and he had engaged in a similar transaction a few years earlier without IRS objection. Calling it a "close case," the Court found no clear error.

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