Articles Posted in Appellate Procedure

by

Larry Fabian was hired in 2001 by Cantor Fitzgerald to be a broker at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. In 2007, he was transferred to BGC, which was a spinoff company of Cantor Fitzgerald.

In 2008, Fabian was named as a partner of “Founding Partner No. 69.” According to Fabian, he earned 100,393 “founding partner units” which could later be converted into common stock of the company.

On March 27, 2009, Fabian quit working for BGC to work for another securities firm. Shortly after leaving BGC, Fabian initiated arbitration before the Chicago Mercantile Exchange where he received $121,758 in commissions that he was owed from Cantor Fitzgerald. This did not include any reimbursement for his “founding partner units.”

Continue reading

by

In a recent Illinois Appellate Court case, the issue was whether to deduct attorney fees and litigation expenses from the personal-injury settlement amount or judgment before calculating the 40 percent maximum that hospitals and doctors are entitled to receive as their share of lawsuit proceeds under Illinois’ Health Care Services Lien Act.

In a 2012 5th District Appellate Court decision, that court interpreted the health-care lien act as meaning that “the trial court should have begun its calculations of 40 percent for the lienholders after payment of attorney fees and costs necessary in securing the judgment.” Stanton v. Rea, 2012 IL App (5th) 110187.

However, the Illinois Appellate Court for the 1st District has ruled in a consolidated appeal that involved liens asserted by Cook County’s Stroger Hospital that “a circuit court may not subtract attorney fees and costs from a plaintiff’s recovery before calculating health-care services liens from the resulting subtotal; the calculation of the health-care services lien must be made from plaintiff’s total recovery. To that extent, the 5th District in Stanton suggested otherwise. We disagree.” That quote comes directly out of the text of the decision in the Wolf case discussed below. Justice Margaret Stanton McBride wrote the opinion.

Continue reading

by

The general rule in Illinois, under Section 2-610(b) of the Illinois Civil Procedure, “every allegation, except allegations of damages, not explicitly denied is admitted.” In this case, the defendant chose not to file an answer before the start of the trial. The question for the appellate court was: “Are the allegations in the complaint automatically considered as having been admitted based on Section 2-610(b)?” The answer to the question by the Illinois Appellate Court for the 5th District was, “No.” The appellate court concluded that “Section 2-610 of the Code is inapplicable in a situation where there has been no answer filed.”

In this case, Crawford County Oil and LaCross Inc. sued Floyd Weger, Michael Worthy, Paula Worthy and Charlene Cornwell in a downstate Illinois municipality 243 miles south of Chicago. First, the defendants moved to dismiss. When that motion was denied, the defendants requested summary judgment.

The Illinois Supreme Court Rule 181(a) says that when a defendant responds to a complaint by filing a motion and the request is denied; “an answer or another appropriate motion shall be filed within the time the court directs in the order disposing of the motion.”

Continue reading

by

On Sept. 27, 2011, Darius Young, who was 15 at the time, participated in a dice game on a Chicago street with several individuals. One of them, Daniel Glen, who was in a wheelchair, won all of Young’s money during the game; however, he began to suspect that another individual, Jonathan Harris, was trying to cheat him.

When Glen rolled the wheelchair into an alley “to relieve himself,” he claimed that Harris approached him holding a 9 mm handgun and demanded money. Glen stated that Harris put the gun to his back and directed Young to search him for the money he lost. Young grabbed the money from Glen’s pocket, and he and Glen “tussled,” according to his trial testimony, knocking Glen out of his wheelchair. Glen testified that Young and Harris fled, but returned a few minutes later.

Young then put Glen back in his wheelchair and threw $45 at him stating, “I just wanted my birthday money back, my $120.” The incident was reported to the Chicago police by Glen, who identified Young by his nickname and Harris from a lineup.

Continue reading

by

In a car crash case in which the plaintiff claimed injury, the jury found for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. The appellate court found that the plaintiff had not preserved the appealed issues and affirmed the decision of the jury and the trial court in favor of the defendant.

On appeal from a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff, Warren G. Hamilton, asked the Illinois Appellate Court to grant his request for judgment as a matter of law on the liability and to return the case the trial judge on the issue of damages.

Hamilton thought he preserved the issue for appeal by (1) asking for a directed verdict or in the jury instructions conference; and (2) filing an opposed trial motion under §2-1202(a) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure that argued, among other things, the “defendant was negligent as a matter of law” and “the court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the plaintiff at the close of evidence.” In the same motion, Hamilton argued that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and closed by asking for a new trial, not judgment notwithstanding the verdict on liability.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court has answered a certified question that was brought to it from a circuit court judge. In this case, Michael McGrath owned a home designed and built by Patrick Plunkett Architectural Design Ltd. and insured by American Family Insurance Co. McGrath filed an insurance claim on Aug. 23, 2006 claiming that the water damage to his home was caused by the faulty design in construction by the defendant, Patrick Plunkett Architectural. American Family first denied McGrath’s claim; he then filed suit against American Family and won in federal court. McGrath won his case on summary judgment, and American Family agreed to a settlement for about $1.1 million. After paying McGrath, American Family requested that McGrath sign a written assignment to the extent of its payment, but McGrath chose not to respond.

American Family then filed suit against the defendants, Patrick Plunkett and his architectural firm, claiming negligence and causing the damage to McGrath’s home. Since American Family did not have an executed written assignment, the insurance company filed suit in its capacity as McGrath’s equitable subrogee. At the same time the American Family lawsuit was pending, it filed a lawsuit against McGrath for specific performance in order to obtain his executed written assignment. However, American Family’s suit against defendants was dismissed with prejudice on a combined motion to dismiss under §2-619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619.1), with a trial court finding that American Family was required to have a written assignment in order to pursue a subrogation claim. Shortly after that, American Family’s lawsuit against McGrath was dismissed with a trial court finding that American Family had released its claim for an assignment by settling the federal lawsuit. The trial judge also found that the claim was barred by res judicata based on the dismissal of the equitable subrogation suit against defendants.

American Family simultaneously appealed the dismissal of both lawsuits and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the subrogation claim, holding that American Family had failed to perfect its rights of subrogation under the terms of the insurance policy. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of American Family’s claim against McGrath and remanded the case. The opinion of the court in that case was unpublished under Supreme Court Rule 23. On remand, McGrath eventually did execute the assignment for American Family and that case was dismissed.

Continue reading

by

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago has dismissed an appeal from a U.S. District Court judge. In an extremely sad case, Robert Lindner’s parents, Burton and Zorine Lindner, were driving under a bridge near north suburban Glenview, Ill., when a Union Pacific freight train derailed overhead. The derailment caused the collapse of the bridge crushing the Lindners in their car. Their son brought a lawsuit against Union Pacific and a wrongful death action in Illinois state court alleging that Union Pacific’s negligence caused the accident and his parents’ wrongful deaths.

At the time the lawsuit was filed, there was complete diversity between the parties. That means that the residencies of the plaintiffs and the residencies of the defendants must be of different states. The decedents were residents and citizens of Illinois. The residency determines diversity jurisdiction. Mr. Lindner was acting as a representative of the estate.

Union Pacific is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Omaha, Neb. Union Pacific removed the case to the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago because of the complete diversity of the parties.

Continue reading

by

James Folta had stopped working at Ferro Engineering 41 years before he was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma. He claimed that while working for Ferro Engineering he was exposed to “tremendous amounts of airborne asbestos fibers.” According to the lawsuit, Folta knew that exposure to asbestos dust was dangerous, but Ferro Engineering did not warn him and did not provide respiratory safety equipment.

By the time Folta received the fatal diagnosis, the statutes of repose had expired for claims under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (the statute is 25 years) and the Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act (the statute is 3 years after the claimant stopped working for the employer).

As Folta had no other available course of action, he filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County claiming that his mesothelioma was caused by the negligence of Ferro Engineering. Because of the exclusive-remedy provisions found in the Workers’ Compensation and Occupational Diseases statutes, the lawsuit was dismissed. Continue reading

by

Stephen Wolkoff, 65, rented a self-storage unit from Sunshine Storage Inc. There was a loft storage unit above Wolkoff’s storage unit. The floor of the loft comprised the ceiling of Wolkoff’s storage unit. When Wolkoff was inside his unit, the ceiling above him collapsed crushing him beneath 3,000 pounds of material.

Wolkoff suffered a fractured pelvis, ruptured urethra and nerve damage to both of his legs. Wolkoff underwent open reduction surgery and reconstruction of his entire pelvis, procedures to reconnect his urethra and implant an artificial sphincter to drain his bladder and surgery to repair nerve damage in his legs.

Wolkoff also required a colostomy and wore the bag for three years. In addition, Wolkoff suffered complications, including infections to both ankles. Blood loss from the injuries caused permanent vision loss in his left eye and partial loss in his right eye. Wolkoff’s medical expenses totaled $3.2 million.

Continue reading

by

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago has affirmed the dismissal of a fraud case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Patrick Camasta filed a lawsuit against Joseph A. Bank Clothiers Inc. claiming that prior to making purchases at the company’s far north suburban store in Deer Park, Ill., that he saw an advertisement about “sale prices” for certain items.

Camasta’s complaint did not specify when or where he saw the advertisement, what exactly the advertisement said, what the “sale prices” were or what particular merchandise was eligible for the sale.

At the Deer Park Joseph A. Bank store, Camasta found that there was a promotion in which customers were able to buy one shirt and get two for free. Camasta purchased six shirts for $167. After his purchases, Camasta alleged that he learned that Bank’s practice was to advertise normal retail prices as normal price reductions. Camasta alleged but for this fraudulent retail tactic, he would not have purchased the six shirts.

Continue reading