1 In the United States Court of Appeals No For the Seventh Circuit BLYTHE HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, et al., Plaintiffs Appellants, v. JOHN A. DEANGELIS, et al., Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 06 C 5262 Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge. ARGUED JANUARY 24, 2014 DECIDED APRIL 21, 2014 Before BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. BAUER, Circuit Judge. Blythe Holdings, Incorporated ( Blythe ) entered into a contract with Tracy Williams ( Williams ) of Flawless Financial to pursue the acquisition of vacant lots on the south side of Chicago. Blythe also contracted with attorney John DeAngelis ( DeAngelis ) to assist with the transaction; he submitted an application on behalf of Blythe to the City of Chicago. Before the application process was complete, Blythe
2 2 No brought suit against DeAngelis and his firm, Brown Udell & Pomerantz, Ltd. ( Brown Udell ), claiming legal malpractice and unjust enrichment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of DeAngelis and Brown Udell on the legal malpractice claim and granted Brown Udell s motion for summary judgment on the unjust enrichment claim. Blythe now appeals to this court. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND Stephanie Hill ( Hill ) formed the corporation Blythe in order to pursue the acquisition of several hundred vacant lots located in Chicago s 16th Ward. Hill was the sole owner and employee of Blythe. On October 25, 2005, Blythe entered into a consulting agreement with Williams of Flawless Financial. In this agreement, Williams was to deliver up to 400 residential building lots to Blythe Holdings, Inc. or assigns for $1 million or $2,500 per lot in a minimum 6 9 months time period. The agreement required Blythe to pay legal fees for a total of $50,000 to the attorney recommended by Flawless Financial and deliver a retainer fee of $25,000 to begin the process. Williams recommended attorney DeAngelis to assist Blythe with the acquisition of the lots. Pursuant to this recommendation, Blythe entered into a representation agreement with DeAngelis, who agreed to provide legal and consulting services in connection with [Blythe s] acquisition of approximately 400 vacant lots and to provide such consultation and advice as is necessary in connection with fostering the successful conclusion of the
3 No Application [to the City of Chicago]. At the time, DeAngelis was employed as an attorney with Brown Udell. DeAngelis drafted the retainer agreement with Blythe on Brown Udell letterhead, but never informed anyone at Brown Udell of his decision to represent Blythe. On December 1, 2005, Blythe paid DeAngelis a $25,000 retainer fee pursuant to the terms of the agreement. The check was made payable to John DeAngelis, Esq., and was deposited by DeAngelis into the John A. DeAngelis Client Fund Account at Northern Trust Company. DeAngelis never notified anyone at Brown Udell that he had received a $25,000 check from Blythe and never shared any portion of the fees he received from Blythe with Brown Udell. On December 15, 2005, Hill wrote to DeAngelis informing him that Blythe would be transferring $270,000 to his Client Fund Account. Blythe directed DeAngelis to distribute the funds in the following manner: $250,000 to Flawless Financial as final payment for the 100 residential lots provided by the City of Chicago and deeded to Blythe Holdings, Inc., and $20,000 to Flawless Financial for Consulting Fees. Several Blythe investors then transferred $250,000 to the John A. DeAngelis Client Fund Account. The next day, DeAngelis transferred $249,978 to an account held in the names of Flawless Financial and Williams. None of the funds transferred to Flawless Financial and Williams were ever used to purchase lots from the City of Chicago on behalf of Blythe. 1 1 Blythe brought RICO claims against Williams and Flawless Financial in a related action, claiming that Blythe was the victim of a real estate based scheme to defraud investors. On May 3, 2013, the district court entered a (continued...)
4 4 No On May 12, 2006, DeAngelis submitted an Application for Purchase of Redevelopment Project Area Property to the City of Chicago s Department of Planning and Development on behalf of Blythe in an effort to obtain the vacant lots. The application was actually submitted on behalf of Chicago 100, Inc., a second corporation formed by Hill for the express purpose of acquiring the city lots. To simplify matters, we omit mention of Chicago 100, Inc., and refer to Hill s corporations solely as Blythe in this opinion. Michelle Nolan ( Nolan ), Project Manager at the Department of Planning and Development, reviewed the application. Though the application contained multiple errors, Nolan stated that none were fatal to Blythe s efforts to acquire the vacant lots. In mid May, Stephen Forte, a Blythe investor, contributed an additional $250,000 to Blythe to pursue the acquisition of the city lots. In June, Nolan wrote to Hill, explaining that Blythe still needed to submit several items in order to move forward with its application. Nolan outlined the steps that Blythe needed to take before the application process would be complete, including gaining approvals from the Chicago Development Commission and the City Council. At this point, however, Blythe made no further attempts to move forward with the project, to amend its application, or to pursue the requisite approvals. On June 23, 2006, DeAngelis wrote to Blythe, stating that he need[ed] input from [Blythe] to complete the application, but 1 (...continued) final default judgment against Flawless Financial and Williams in an amount exceeding $9 million.
5 No he received no response. Blythe asserts that by this point, it lacked the funds necessary to move forward with the application. When asked about the $250,000 that Blythe had obtained from investor Stephen Forte in mid May, Hill responded that she [could] not recall what happened to the funds. Blythe then brought suit against DeAngelis and his former law firm, Brown Udell, claiming legal malpractice by both parties and unjust enrichment on the part of Brown Udell. DeAngelis and Brown Udell moved for summary judgment and the district court found in their favor on all counts. Blythe now appeals. A. Standard of Review II. DISCUSSION We review a district court s grant of summary judgment de novo. Pagel v. TIN Inc., 695 F.3d 622, 624 (7th Cir. 2012). Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). [T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment. Id. at [T]he nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial. Id. (citing First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968)).
6 6 No B. Legal Malpractice Claim Blythe first contends that DeAngelis and Brown Udell committed legal malpractice. To prevail on a legal malpractice claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the existence of an attorney client relationship that establishes a duty on the part of the attorney; (2) a negligent act or omission constituting a breach of that duty; (3) proximate cause establishing that but for the attorney s negligence, the plaintiff would have prevailed in the underlying action; and (4) damages. Owens v. McDermott, Will & Emery, 316 Ill. App. 3d 340, 351 (2000) (quoting Serafin v. Seith, 284 Ill. App. 3d 577, (1996)). [N]o malpractice exists unless counsel s negligence has resulted in the loss of the underlying action. Mihailovich v. Laatsch, 359 F.3d 892, 905 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting Ignaski v. Norbut, 207 Ill. App. 3d 522, 525 (1995)). Here, an attorney client relationship existed between DeAngelis and Blythe and that established a duty on DeAngelis part. It could be argued that DeAngelis breached his duty to Blythe, since the application he filed to the City of Chicago on Blythe s behalf was riddled with errors. Nevertheless, even if DeAngelis breached his duty to Blythe, Blythe still must prove that but for DeAngelis negligence, it would have acquired the vacant city lots in order to prevail on its legal malpractice claim. Mitchell v. Schain addressed a similar issue. 332 Ill. App. 3d 618 (2002). In Mitchell, the plaintiff retained defendants to represent him in a property dispute. He discharged defendants and retained another attorney, Koukios, to represent him instead; three years later, plaintiff s right to bring his claim
7 No expired. Plaintiff then brought legal malpractice claims against the defendants and Koukios. Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that because plaintiff s cause of action remained viable when defendants were discharged, they were not the proximate cause of plaintiff s damages as a matter of law. The court granted defendants motion for summary judgment and plaintiff appealed, contending that, but for defendants alleged malpractice, he would not have been foreclosed from bringing his claim. The court of appeals affirmed the court s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, stating, [t]here is no question that plaintiff s cause of action was viable, as a matter of law, well after defendants were discharged. It therefore follows that defendants alleged negligence did not cause plaintiff s damages, the loss of a viable cause of action. Id. at 622. Here, though the application submitted by DeAngelis to the city on behalf of Blythe contained errors, these errors did not ultimately prevent Blythe from obtaining the vacant city lots, nor did Blythe prove that its ability to obtain the vacant lots was lost. Nolan, Project Manager at the Department of Planning and Development, testified that any errors in the application submitted by DeAngelis were nonfatal, and pointed out that the lots were still available for purchase well after Blythe s application was submitted. Since Blythe s ability to acquire the vacant lots remained legally viable well after any alleged malpractice by DeAngelis, it was Blythe s failure to move forward with the application process, not malpractice on the part of DeAngelis, that doomed Blythe s real estate deal. In addition, Blythe submitted no evidence to support a finding that it would have successfully completed the
8 8 No application process and obtained the vacant lots but for DeAngelis alleged malpractice. Though Blythe asserts that the deposition testimony of Alderman Shirley Coleman ( Coleman ) conclusively shows that Blythe would have been successful in obtaining the city lots, we disagree. While Coleman stated that it appeared to her that Blythe had the ability and financial wherewithal to develop the project and that she was willing to do what needed to be done in order to assist Blythe to get its sought development done, Blythe still needed to gain approvals from the Chicago Development Commission as well as the City Council before the application process was complete. The district court specifically addressed Coleman s testimony and found her speculation woefully inadequate to prove that [Blythe] would have successfully completed the numerous steps required to acquire the lots. Blythe offered no evidence demonstrating that either the commission or the council would have approved its application; to the contrary, Blythe s owner, Hill, admitted in her deposition testimony that she had no way of knowing whether the City of Chicago would have granted Blythe the necessary approvals. Since Blythe failed to prove that DeAngelis claimed malpractice foreclosed its ability to obtain the vacant lots or that ultimately it would have been successful in acquiring the property, we affirm the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of DeAngelis on Blythe s legal malpractice claim.
9 No C. Supervisory Liability Claim Blythe also asserts that Brown Udell is liable for legal malpractice pursuant to an agency theory of supervisory liability. Since Blythe failed to prove that DeAngelis committed legal malpractice, its malpractice claim against Brown Udell has no merit. D. Unjust Enrichment Claim Lastly, Blythe contends that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment to Brown Udell on its unjust enrichment claim. Blythe asserts that since DeAngelis entered into a representation agreement with Blythe and accepted a $25,000 retainer fee from Blythe while he was employed as an attorney for Brown Udell, the firm constructively accepted the retainer fee and was unjustly enriched. Blythe now seeks the return of these funds. In response, Brown Udell asserts that since it never received any portion of these funds from DeAngelis, it was never unjustly enriched, and Blythe cannot recover. Unjust enrichment is a remedy that lies where a defendant has unjustly retained a benefit to the plaintiff s detriment and the defendant s retention of the benefit violates the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. Hess v. Kanoski & Associates, 668 F.3d 446, 455 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting A.P. Properties, Inc. v. Rattner, 960 N.E.2d 618, 621 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011)). [U]njust enrichment does not seek to compensate a plaintiff for loss or damages suffered but seeks to disgorge a benefit that the defendant unjustly retains. Cleary v. Philip Morris, Inc., 656 F.3d 511, 518 (7th Cir. 2011). [T]he essence of the cause of action is that one party is
10 10 No enriched, and it would be unjust for that party to retain the enrichment. Firemen s Annuity & Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago v. Municipal Employees, Officers, & Officials Annuity & Benefit Fund in Chicago, 219 Ill. App. 3d 707, 712 (1991). Here, the undisputed evidence supports a finding that Brown Udell never received any portion of the funds from DeAngelis. Though DeAngelis received a check for $25,000 from Blythe, this check was made out to John DeAngelis, Esq., and was deposited into DeAngelis personal Client Fund Account at Northern Trust Company. No partners at Brown Udell had access to this account or received any portion of these funds. In his deposition, DeAngelis admitted that he never told anyone at Brown Udell about his agreement to represent Blythe, and never shared any portion of the $25,000 he received from Blythe with Brown Udell. Since Brown Udell never received any funds from Blythe, no unjust enrichment occurred. Even assuming that DeAngelis was acting as an authorized agent of Brown Udell at the time he contracted to represent Blythe, imputing the contract to Brown Udell, Blythe s unjust enrichment claim still fails. A claim for unjust enrichment is based upon an implied contract; where there is a specific contract that governs the relationship of the parties, the doctrine has no application. People ex rel. Hartigan v. E & E Hauling, Inc., 153 Ill. 2d 473, 497 (1992). Under Illinois law, a plaintiff may not state a claim for unjust enrichment when a contract governs the relationship between the parties. First Commodity Traders, Inc. v. Heinhold Commodities, Inc., 766 F.2d 1007, 1011 (7th Cir. 1985) (citing LaThrop v. Bell Federal Savings & Loan Ass n, 68 Ill. 2d 375, 391 (1977)).
11 No Here, it is undisputed that the retainer agreement signed by DeAngelis and Blythe was a valid and binding contract. Under this contract, DeAngelis agreed to provide legal and consulting services [to Blythe] in connection with [Blythe s] acquisition of approximately 400 vacant lots and to provide such consultation and advice as is necessary in connection with fostering the successful conclusion of the Application. In return, Blythe agreed to pay DeAngelis $25,000, which it later deposited into DeAngelis Client Fund Account. Since Blythe never challenged the contract s validity, the appropriate remedy was a breach of contract claim; unjust enrichment has no application. We affirm the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of Brown Udell on this ground as well. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we affirm the district court s grant of summary judgment to defendants DeAngelis and Brown Udell on all counts.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JAMES D. FOWLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 08-cv-2785 ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Judge Robert M. Dow,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EVELYN THOMAS v. COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF PHILADELPHIA CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-5372 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Kauffman, J. April 18, 2008
Case: 13-14238 Date Filed: 05/30/2014 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-14238 D.C. Docket No. 3:10-cv-01228-HGD MARK A. DOWDY, versus SUZUKI
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued January 8, 2008 Decided July 23,
Case 2:08-cv-03323-BMS Document 17 Filed 08/04/09 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PATRICIA MAYER, : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : CARLOS MASCAREHAS,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc KENNETH SUNDERMEYER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR ELVA ELIZABETH SUNDERMEYER, DECEASED, Appellant, v. SC89318 SSM REGIONAL HEALTH SERVICES D/B/A VILLA
8:09-cv-00341-LSC-FG3 Doc # 276 Filed: 07/19/13 Page 1 of 5 - Page ID # 3979 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA MICHAEL S. ARGENYI, Plaintiff, v. CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY, Defendant.
2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Case 2:04-cv-03428-SRD-ALC Document 29 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA EDWARD McGARRY, ET AL CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 04-3428 TRAVELERS LIFE AND ANNUITY
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0721n.06 No. 13-2126 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PATRICK RUGIERO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; FANNIE MAE; MORTGAGE
Case: 1:10-cv-02125 Document #: 55 Filed: 02/03/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:411 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION GUARANTEE TRUST LIFE ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff,
FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit WILLIAM MOSHER; LYNN MOSHER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 19, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk
Case: 13-12276 Date Filed: 01/02/2014 Page: 1 of 9 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-12276 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 5:10-cv-01537-AKK MELVIN BRADLEY,
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Bukowski, 2015 IL App (1st) 140780 Appellate Court Caption CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANNA BUKOWSKI and KATHERINE D. BUKOWSKI,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT CRISTOBAL COLON, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Case No.
Case: 15-10192 Document: 00513409349 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. DARILYN JOHNSON, v. Plaintiff Appellant,
No. 3 09 0033 Filed December 16, 2009 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009 KEPPLE AND COMPANY, INC., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court an Illinois Corporation, ) of the 10th Judicial
[Cite as Bernardini v. Fedor, 2013-Ohio-4633.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) ROBERT BERNARDINI Appellant C.A. No. 12CA0063 v. ROBERT FEDOR, ESQ.
Page 1 FOCUS - 130 of 497 DOCUMENTS NICOLE TERRY, Personal Representative of the Estate of John Hunter Wellman, Jr., Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and DEBORAH A. WELLMAN, Defendants.
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-8-2014 In Re: Asbestos Products Liability Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-4002 Follow
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2009-CA-01586-COA ANGELA HUMPHRIES AND KEVIN FROMME APPELLANTS v. PEARLWOOD APARTMENTS PARTNERSHIP AND MAC-RE, LLC APPELLEES DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/08/2009
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 96-11134 Summary Calendar. Rosser B. MELTON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEACHERS INSURANCE & ANNUITY ASSOCIATION of AMERICA, Defendant- Appellee, United
Case 3:12-cv-01004-JPG-PMF Document 123 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #2498 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS HAMILTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT, an Illinois governmental
Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMES MEYER, v. Plaintiff, DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CA-01200-COA HARVEY HALEY APPELLANT v. ANNA JURGENSON, AGELESS REMEDIES FRANCHISING, LLC, AGELESS REMEDIES MEDICAL SKINCARE AND APOTHECARY AND
2015 IL App (1st) 150941-U SIXTH DIVISION December 18, 2015 No. 1-15-0941 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A11-1328 Alpine Meadows Townhome Association, Appellant,
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
5:05-cv-60218-JCO-MAR Doc # 277 Filed 01/03/08 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 3230 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ROOFERS LOCAL 149 SECURITY BENEFIT TRUST FUND, et al., Plaintiffs,
Case 0:05-cv-02409-DSD-RLE Document 51 Filed 03/16/2006 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No. 05-2409(DSD/RLE) Kristine Forbes (Lamke) and Morgan Koop, Plaintiffs, v.
PRESENT: All the Justices LEO WILLIAMS v. Record No. 080751 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN June 4, 2009 LOUIS N. JOYNES, II, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH Dean W. Sword,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-IA-00181-SCT VICKSBURG HEALTHCARE, LLC d/b/a RIVER REGION HEALTH SYSTEM v. CLARA DEES DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/22/2013 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ISADORE W. PATRICK, JR.
Case 3:05-cv-02361-M Document 24 Filed 02/21/07 Page 1 of 8 PageID 623 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION RANDY OLDHAM, Plaintiff, v. No. 3:05-CV-2361-M
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) CITY OF LINCOLN V. DIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
In the United States Court of Appeals No. 13-1186 For the Seventh Circuit IN RE: JAMES G. HERMAN, Debtor-Appellee. APPEAL OF: JOHN P. MILLER Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227
Case 1:05-cv-00050-GC Document 29 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 245 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE BUSINESS LENDERS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. 05-50-B-C RITANNE CAVANAUGH GAZAK,
Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB ERNA GANSER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT
Case 2:14-cv-02386-MVL-DEK Document 33 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA KIRSTEN D'JUVE CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 14-2386 AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE
Case: 1:10-cv-08146 Document #: 27 Filed: 06/29/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:342 TKK USA INC., f/k/a The Thermos Company, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION ) CHARLES HONEYCUTT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) NO. 02-2710 Ml/V ) FIRST FEDERAL BANK, a FSB d/b/a ) First Federal
2013 IL App (1st) 120546-U Third Division March 13, 2013 No. 1-12-0546 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
Case 1:12-cv-01164-LY Document 38 Filed 02/21/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION CARONARDA FERNANDA BENBOW V. A-12-CV-1164 LY LIBERTY MUTUAL
SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 22nd day of February, 2013. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WINSTON-SALEM DIVISION In re: Joseph Walter Melara and Shyrell Lynn Melara, Case No.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA 08-776 KAREN LIVINGS VERSUS LAWYERS PROTECTIVE PLAN, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Case 0:10-cv-00772-PAM-RLE Document 33 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Ideal Development Corporation, Mike Fogarty, J.W. Sullivan, George Riches, Warren Kleinsasser,
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION EEOC versus BROWN & GROUP RETAIL, INC. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-06-3074 Memorandum and Order Regarding Discovery Motions,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION JASON LONG, Plaintiff, v. NO. 0:00-CV-000 ABC THE CHABON GROUP, INC., Defendant. DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
[Cite as Marok v. Ohio State Univ., 2008-Ohio-3170.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Theodore K. Marok, III, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 07AP-921 (C.C. No. 2006-06736) v. : (REGULAR
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE: CASE NO. JAMES MICHAEL WATSON 03-13355 DEBTOR CHAPTER 7 SECURITY RESOURCES, L.L.C. ADV. NO and INTERFACE SECURITY SYSTEMS, L.L.C. 04-1005
THIRD DIVISION ANDREWS, P. J., DILLARD and MCMILLIAN, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STEPHEN
Case 8:13-cv-00295-EAK-TGW Document 145 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 5551 SUMMIT CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION v. CASE NO. 8:13-CV-295-T-17TGW
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2011-CT-00444-SCT CURTIS BOYD, BY AND THROUGH MARY MASTIN, NEXT FRIEND, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF AND FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF CURTIS L. BOYD v. GREGORY NUNEZ,
Case: 14-11921 Date Filed: 02/25/2015 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11921 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-22917-MGC UNITED
Filed: 12-19-08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT WESTPORT INSURANCE Appeal from the Circuit Court CORPORATION, of McHenry County. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. No. 04--MR--53
3:12-cv-03107-SEM-BGC # 43 Page 1 of 26 E-FILED Thursday, 19 December, 2013 03:21:32 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROL DEMIZIO AND ANTHONY : CIVIL ACTION DEMIZIO in their own right and as : ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE : NO. 05-409 OF MATTHEW
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 11, 2015 Session JAY DANIEL, ET AL. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Tipton County No. 7087 Joe H. Walker, III,
case 1:11-cv-00399-JTM-RBC document 35 filed 11/29/12 page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION CINDY GOLDEN, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:11 CV 399 STATE FARM MUTUAL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MARYLAND ACCOUNTING SERVICES, INC., et al. Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CCB-11-CV-00145 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: LOUIS T. PERRY HARMONY A. MAPPES Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: ALICE BARTANEN BLEVINS Salem, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA GREEN TREE
Case 4:13-cv-03228 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/04/15 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION DAVID W. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-13-3228 WELLS
2015 IL App (1st) 143925-U FOURTH DIVISION September 30, 2015 No. 1-14-3925 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE QUERREY & HARROW, LTD., SANDERS PIANOWSKI, LLP AND TRANSCONTINENTAL INS. CO. JAMES N. KOSMOND, AND ROBERT A. SANDERS GRETCHEN CEPEK
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York insurance company, v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BRENDA D. FLUSTY and BETTY A. KRIDER, Co-Personal
Case 3:09-cv-01222-MMH-JRK Document 33 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 3:09-cv-1222-J-34JRK
Case 1:11-cv-01397-CAP Document 69 Filed 02/27/13 Page 1 of 10 TAMMY DRUMMONDS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 1:11-CV-1397-CAP
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JOAN FALLOWS KLUGE, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. L-10-00022 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Joan Fallows
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
FRANK DONALD WILLIAMS; DANIEL LARRY; DANIEL LABATO; JOSEPH STONE; STEPHANIE SLATER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT
Case 2:06-cv-02026-CM Document 114 Filed 03/10/09 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ) METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION v.
[Cite as Uhl v. McKoski, 2014-Ohio-479.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) VICKIE L. UHL C.A. No. 27066 Appellant v. JOHN MCKOSKI, et al. Appellees
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, UNPUBLISHED July19, 2011 v No. 297534 Oakland Circuit Court BRIAN LEPP, LC No. 09-101116-CK and Defendant/Cross-Defendant,
Case 4:13-cv-01104 Document 40 Filed in TXSD on 02/26/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION SHARON JACKSON, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION H-13-1104
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 1 PAUL ELKINS and KATHY ELKINS, husband and wife, v. Plaintiffs, QBE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a foreign insurer; COMMUNITYASSOCIATION