Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP et al
Filing
258
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on notice of appeal 256 . Notified counsel (gel, )
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 256 Filed: 11/15/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:5613
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DAVID GROCHOCINSKI, not
individually, but solely in his capacity as
the Chapter 7 Trustee for the bankruptcy
estate of CMGT, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAYER BROWN ROWE & MAW LLP and
RONALD B. GIVEN,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 06 C 5486
Judge Virginia M. Kendall
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that Defendants Mayer Brown LLP (formerly known as Mayer
Brown Rowe & Maw LLP) and Ronald P. Given (together, “Defendants”), hereby appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from the following orders entered in this
action by District Judge Virginia M. Kendall: (1) those portions of the June 30, 2011 Minute
Order and accompanying Memorandum Opinion and Order (together, the “June 30 Orders”) that
denied Defendants’ requests for sanctions against Plaintiff David Grochocinski (“Grochocinski”),
individually and in his official capacity as the Chapter 7 Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of
CMGT, Inc., and/or Grochocinski’s counsel, Edward T. Joyce & Associates (“Joyce”); and (2) the
October 17, 2011 Written Opinion (the “October 17 Order”) setting forth the amount of sanctions
to be paid by Joyce which, among other things, made the June 30 Orders and the October 17 Order
final and appealable.
Respectfully submitted,
MAYER BROWN LLP and RONALD B. GIVEN
By:
/s/ Stephen Novack
One Of Their Attorneys
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 256 Filed: 11/15/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:5614
Stephen Novack
Mitchell L. Marinello
Steven J. Ciszewski
John Haarlow, Jr.
NOVACK AND MACEY LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 419-6900
Doc. #462743
2
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 256 Filed: 11/15/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:5615
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Stephen Novack, an attorney, hereby certifies that he caused a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Notice of Appeal to be served through the ECF system upon the following:
Edward T. Joyce
Arthur W. Aufmann
Robert D. Carroll
Edward T. Joyce & Assoc., P.C.
11 S. LaSalle St.
Chicago, IL 60603
David Morgans
Myers & Miller, LLC
30 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60602
and by Federal Express overnight service, upon the following:
Gerard Spehar
1625 Grandview Avenue
Glendale, CA 91201
on this 15th day of November, 2011.
/s/ Stephen Novack
3
SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INFORMATION SHEET
Include the names of all plaintiffs (petitioners) and defendants (respondents) who are parties
to the appeal. Use a separate sheet if needed.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION DOCKET NUMBER:
PLAINTIFF (Petitioner)
v.
David Grochocinski/Appellant
06cv5486
DEFENDANT (Respondent)
Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP et al/Appellee
(Use separate sheet for additional counsel)
PETITIONER’S COUNSEL
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL
Name
David Edward Morgans
Name
Stephen Novack
Firm
Myers Carden & Sax, LLC
Firm
Novack & Macey LLP
Address
Thirty North LaSalle Street
Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60602
Address
100 North Riverside Plaza
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone
312-345-7250
Phone
312-419-6900
Other Information
District Judge
Kendall
Court Reporter
R Scarpelli
Nature of Suit Code
190
COUNSEL:
FEE STATUS:
Date Filed in District Court
Appointed
Paid
Date of Judgment
6/30/2011, 10/17/2011
Date of Notice of Appeal
5815
10/10/2006
11/15/2011
Retained
X
X
Pro Se
IFP
U.S.
IFP Pending
Due
Waived
Has Docketing Statement been filed with the District Court Clerk’s Office?
Yes
No
X
If State/Federal Habeas Corpus (28 USC 2254/28 USC 2255), was Certificate of Appealability:
Granted
Denied
Pending
If Certificate of Appealability was granted or denied, date of order:
If defendant is in federal custody, please provide U.S. Marshall number (USM#):
IMPORTANT: THIS FORM IS TO ACCOMPANY THE SHORT RECORD SENT TO THE CLERK OF
THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS PURSUANT TO CIRCUIT RULE 3(A). Rev 04/01
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 246 Filed: 06/30/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:5540
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2
Eastern Division
David Grochocinski
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No.: 1:06−cv−05486
Honorable Virginia M. Kendall
Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, et al.
Defendant.
NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, June 30, 2011:
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Enter MEMORANDUM,
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above, and pursuant to both § 1927
and its inherent power to enter sanctions, the Court denies the Mayer Browns motion for
sanctions as to Grochocinski, and grants in part Mayer Browns motion as to Joyce. By
July 8, 2011, Mayer Brown must file its fee petition detailing: (1) one−half the attorneys
fees and costs it incurred in preparing for and taking Grochocinskis deposition; (2)
one−half of the Grochocinski deposition costs; and (3) one−half the attorneys fees and
costs it incurred to bring the sanctions motion. Any response to the bill of costs is due July
22, 2011. Mailed notice(tsa, )
ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was
generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and
criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please
refer to it for additional information.
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our
web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/30/11 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:5541
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DAVID GROCHOCINSKI, not individually, but
solely in his capacity as the Chapter 7 Trustee
for the bankruptcy estate of CMGT, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAYER BROWN ROWE & MAW LLP,
RONALD B. GIVEN and CHARLES W.
TRAUTNER,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 06 C 5486
Judge Virginia M. Kendall
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
David Grochocinski (“Grochocinski”), in his capacity as Chapter 7 Trustee for the
bankruptcy estate of CMGT, Inc. (“CMGT”) sued Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP and Ronald B.
Given, one of its attorneys (collectively “Mayor Brown”), for legal malpractice. On March 31, 3010,
this Court granted Mayer Brown’s motion for summary judgment. Mayer Brown now moves for
sanctions against Grochocinski and his attorneys, Edward T. Joyce and Associates (“Joyce”)
pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority to enter sanctions and, as to Joyce, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1927 as well. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the Mayer Brown’s motion as to
Grochocinski and grants it in part as to Joyce.
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/30/11 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:5542
I.
BACKGROUND
A.
Before the Complaint
In early 2004, Spehar Capital, LLC (“SC”), a venture capital consulting firm, secured a $17
million default judgment against CMGT in California state court. (Op. at 6-7.)1 Details of the
prove-up hearing testimony, as well as the facts that led to the judgment, can be found in the Court’s
March 31, 2010 Memorandum Opinion and Order (“March 31, 2010 Opinion”). (Doc. 171); see
Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Row & Maw LLP, No. 06 C 5486, 2010 WL 1407256 (N.D. Ill. Mar.
31, 2010). In that opinion, this Court concluded that the sole owner, officer, and an employee of SC,
Gerry Spehar (“Spehar”), misrepresented the financial state of CMGT to the California court and that
the judgment amount was based on these misrepresentations. (Op. at 6, 21.)
Seeking to recover the $17 million judgment, SC filed a single-creditor involuntary
bankruptcy petition against CMGT in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District
of Illinois. (Op. at 7; Doc. 236, Ex. A ¶ 6.) Spehar admitted that he initiated the bankruptcy
proceeding for the express purpose of collecting the $17 million default judgment from Mayer
Brown through a legal malpractice action. (Op. at 7.) The bankruptcy court, at random, appointed
Grochocinski, a long-time member of the bankruptcy court’s panel of private trustees who had no
professional expertise in the area of professional liability claims, as bankruptcy trustee for CMGT’s
Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate. (Op. at 8; Doc. 236, Ex. A ¶¶ 3-4.) As trustee, Grochocinski was
responsible for marshaling and liquidating the assets of the CMGT estate and he had the capacity to
1
Throughout this Opinion, the Court will abbreviate its March 31, 2010 Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants as “(Op. at ___.).”
2
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/30/11 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:5543
sue parties on behalf of the estate. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.) He received very little information about CMGT
beyond the name of the bankruptcy petitioner when he was appointed. (Id. ¶ 7.)
Soon after Grochocinski’s appointment, Spehar’s counsel, Judson Todhunter (“Todhunter”),
an attorney Grochocinski knew from law school, contacted Grochocinski about filing a legal
malpractice action against Mayer Brown. (Op. at 8; Doc. 236, Ex. A ¶ 12.) Todhunter informed
Grochocinski that SC, a secured creditor, was willing to provide post-petition financing and carve
out funds for the unsecured creditors so that Grochocinski could investigate and bring the legal
malpractice claim. (Op. at 8; Doc. 236, Ex. A ¶ 12.) Grochocinski negotiated and received approval
from the bankruptcy court for a financing agreement that granted SC the majority of any proceeds
recovered from the Mayer Brown. (Op. at 8; Doc. 236, Ex. A ¶ 13; Doc. 235, Ex. B.) In exchange,
SC agreed to loan the estate $17,500 for bankruptcy administration costs. (Op. at 8.) Because he
had no experience investigating and bringing legal malpractice and professional liability claims,
Grochocinski also retained special counsel to evaluate and prosecute the legal malpractice claim.
(Doc. 236, Ex. A ¶¶ 12, 17.) Spehar recommended Edward Joyce, the principal of Joyce, and an
attorney experienced in legal malpractice matters. (Op. at 8; Doc. 236, Ex. A ¶¶ 15-16.) Joyce’s
appointment as special counsel was approved by the bankruptcy court on November 18, 2005. (Id.)
Joyce agreed to represent CMGT and to prosecute any malpractice claims against the Defendants on
a contingency fee. (Op. at 8; Doc. 236, Ex. A ¶ 17.)
Once Joyce was appointed as special counsel, Grochocinski took little part in the
investigation and prosecution of the legal malpractice claim against the Defendants. (Op. at 9-13;
Doc. 236, Ex. A ¶ 18.) According to Grochocinski, “[o]ther than providing [Joyce] with information
from my file, I took no part in investigating the salient facts pertaining to the legal malpractice
3
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/30/11 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:5544
claim.” (Id.) This is true despite the fact that many CMGT shareholders contacted him with
information contrary to what Spehar had told him and Joyce. (Op. at 9; Doc. 236, Ex. A ¶ 28.)
Grochocinski did little research on vacating the California state court judgment and made no attempt
to vacate it. (Op. at 8-9; Doc. 236, Ex. A ¶ 10.)
Before filing this lawsuit, Joyce reviewed “contemporaneous documents,” many of which
were written by a Mayer Brown attorney and CMGT shareholders. (Doc. 235 at 2, 29.) He also sent
CMGT shareholders letters requesting interviews and threatening litigation if they refused to sign
the attached tolling agreements. (Op. at 13; Doc. 235 at 28.) Joyce did not, however, interview any
CMGT shareholders, officers, or directors, or anyone from Mayer Brown before deciding to bring
this case. (Id. at 28-29.) In contrast, Joyce was well-versed in Spehar’s version of events, and Joyce
knew from the beginning of its appointment that Spehar wanted to collect SC’s $17 million
judgment through the malpractice lawsuit. (Id. at 29.)
On August 10, 2006, Grochocinski participated in a conference call with, among others,
Joyce, Spehar, and Todhunter. (Doc. 236, Ex. A ¶ 19.) At the call, Joyce informed the parties that
there was sufficient factual and legal basis for bringing a legal malpractice claim against the
Defendants. (Id.) Relying on this information, Grochocinski approved the filing of this case. (Id.)
He also reviewed the complaint drafted by Joyce, but, according to Grochocinski, because he was
“not involved in the events described in the complaint nor did [he] personally conduct the
investigation, nor [is he] versed in the law of legal professional liability, [he] had no basis to
question the content of the complaint and the advice that the lawsuit be filed.” (Id. ¶ 20.)
4
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/30/11 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:5545
B.
These Proceedings
In late August of 2006, Joyce filed a two-count Complaint against the Defendants in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, which Mayer Brown removed to this Court. In Count I,
Grochocinski alleged that Mayer Brown provided negligent advice to CMGT. Among other things,
Count I alleged that Mayer Brown failed to advise CMGT to settle its dispute with SC before the
dispute escalated to litigation and, as a result, CMGT lost any hope of obtaining financing for its
operations. In Count II, Grochocinski alleged that Mayer Brown failed to defend CMGT, and
advised CMGT not to appear in the California lawsuit, and as a result, the California court entered
a $17 million default judgment against CMGT.
The Court granted in part and denied in part Mayer Brown’s motion to dismiss. First, the
Court determined that Grochocinski could not recover for Mayer Brown’s alleged failure to advise
CMGT that SC would sue and Mayer Brown’s alleged failure to provide legal advice to CMGT’s
shareholders. Nevertheless, the Court denied the motion as to all other grounds. Specifically, the
Court found Mayer Brown’s “unclean hands” argument premature. It concluded that SC, who is not
a party to this action, was the entity that Mayer Brown alleged perpetrated a fraud on the judicial
system, and that, at that point, Mayer Brown had not shown that the plaintiff in this case,
Grochocinski, had done anything wrong. The Court later denied a motion to reconsider from Mayer
Brown, finding that there were factual issues that needed to be resolved and that the case could not
be disposed of on a motion to dismiss. The Court, however, ordered the parties to engage in
discovery on only the “unclean hands” issue and, if appropriate, move for summary judgment based
on that issue.
5
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/30/11 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:5546
Mayer Brown chose to move for summary judgment on the “unclean hands” issue, and the
Court granted that motion on March 31, 2010. Mayer Brown argued that the instant case, if
successful, would yield an absurd result. Specifically, Mayer Brown pointed out that in order for
Grochocinski to win, he had to prove that SC’s claim in the California litigation had no merit. But
then, if Grochocinski succeeded in proving malpractice, he would have to turn over “the lion’s share
of any recovery” to SC “whom he would have just proved had no right to recovery in the first place.”
(Doc. 136 at 9.) The Court found that the crux of the Mayer Brown’s argument was that
Grochocinski, standing in the shoes of SC, should be judicially estopped from taking a position in
this case that is contrary to the prevailing position SC took in the California litigation. (Op. at 16.)
When it granted summary judgment to Mayer Brown, the Court made the following findings,
among others: (1) Spehar secured an artificially-inflated judgment in the California litigation
because of misrepresentations he made to the California court as to CMGT’s worth; (2) at all times
during this litigation, Grochocinski acted as a proxy for SC; (3) as such, Grochocinski could be
judicially estopped from taking a position in this litigation against Mayer Brown that is contrary to
the position previously taken by SC against CMGT; and (4) because Grochocinski was barred from
arguing in this case that but for the Mayer Brown’s negligence, CMGT would have succeeded in the
California litigation, Grochocinski’s legal malpractice claim failed as a matter of law.
C.
The Sanctions Motion
Mayer Brown now moves for sanctions against Grochocinski and Joyce pursuant to the
Court’s inherent authority and, as to Joyce, § 1927 as well. Mayer Brown contends that sanctions
are appropriate against Grochocinski under the Court’s inherent authority because: (1) the “entire
lawsuit was an attack on the integrity of the judicial system”; (2) the “case was not filed in good faith
6
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/30/11 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:5547
by [Grochocinski], who is required to . . . pursu[e] the interests of the entire estate”; and (3)
Grochocinski “conducted no pre-filing investigation and does not even know the bases for the
allegations in his Complaint.” (Doc.177 at 9-10.) Specifically against Joyce, Mayer Brown argues
that sanctions are warranted pursuant to § 1927 because: (1) there was no factual or legal basis for
this lawsuit; (2) that Joyce would pursue such a claim demonstrates a “lack of respect for this Court
and recklessness or gross indifference to the integrity of the judicial system as a whole,” (Doc. 177
at 12); (3) Joyce persisted in this lawsuit even after Mayer Brown “brought the scam to light in their
motion to dismiss,” after the Court stated that Mayer Brown’s “unclean hands” defense was “very
persuasive,” and after Mayer Brown moved for summary judgment with evidence supporting this
defense (Doc. 177 at 13); and (4) Joyce engaged in unprofessional and improper tactics during
Grochocinski’s deposition.
Grochocinski and Joyce responded to the Mayer Brown’s motion separately. Grochocinski
makes two arguments in his response. First, he argues that the Court’s inherent authority does not
extend to a party’s pre-litigation conduct and, as such, the Court has no authority to punish the
parties in this case for conduct that occurred before Mayer Brown removed the case to this Court.
Second, Grochocinski contends that he cannot be personally liable for sanctions unless the Court
finds that he is guilty of the “willful and deliberate violation of his fiduciary duties.” See In re
Chicago Pac. Corp., 773 F.2d 909, 915 (7th Cir. 1985). In his response, Joyce argues that sanctions
are not appropriate against him in here because: (1) Grochocinski’s malpractice claims had a
reasonable basis in fact and law; (2) a reasonable attorney could have believed that Spehar did not
lie during the California prove-up hearing; (3) a reasonable attorney could have believed that
Grochocinski did not file the case solely for Spehar’s benefit; (4) the Court’s findings in its March
7
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/30/11 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:5548
31, 2010 Opinion are not sufficient to support sanctions; and (5) Joyce’s responses to the Mayer
Brown’s “unclean hands” arguments had a reasonable basis in fact and law. The Court will
separately address the claims against Grochocinski and Joyce.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Grochocinski
In its motion, Mayer Brown ask the Court to grant sanctions against Grochocinski pursuant
to its inherent authority. A district court has the inherent power “to address a full range of litigation
abuses.’” Manez v. Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire LLC, 533 F.3d 578, 585 (7th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46 (1991)). This includes the power to assess
attorney’s fees in certain circumstances, such as “when a party has ‘acted in bad faith, vexatiously,
wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.’” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 45-46 (quoting Alyeski Pipeline Serv.
Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240, 258-59 (1975)); see also Salmeron v. Enter. Recovery Sys.,
579 F.3d 787, 793 (7th Cir. 2009) (“Sanctions meted out pursuant to the court’s inherent power are
appropriate where the offender has willfully abuse the judicial process or otherwise conducted
litigation in bad faith.”). Accordingly, “if a court finds that fraud has been practiced upon it, or that
the very temple of justice has been defiled, it may assess attorney’s fees against the responsible party,
as it may when a party shows bad faith by delaying or disrupting the litigation or by hampering
enforcement of a court order.” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 46 (quotations omitted).
What constitutes “bad faith” is a matter of some conflict, but the Seventh Circuit has “used
phrases such as harassment, unnecessary delay, needless increase in the cost of litigation, willful
disobedience, and recklessly making a frivolous claim.” Mach v. Will County Sheriff, 580 F.3d 495,
501 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Stive v. United States, 366 F.3d 520, 521-22 (7th Cir. 2004) (collecting
8
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/30/11 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:5549
cases)). The term also “has both a subjective and objective meaning, and [the Seventh Circuit] often
treat[s] reckless and intentional conduct equally.” Mach, 580 F.3d at 501. Mere negligence,
however, is not enough; the imposition of sanctions under a federal court’s inherent authority
requires fraudulent or dilatory conduct, or a showing of bad faith. See Kovilic Constr. Co. v.
Missbrenner, 106 F.3d 768, 773-74 (7th Cir. 1997) (concluding that the defendant’s attorney was
negligent, but that, because there was no evidence that his actions were fraudulent, dilatory, or taken
in bad faith, sanctions were not appropriate).
Grochocinski first argues that the Court has no authority to sanction him for conduct that
occurred before the Defendants removed the case to this Court because the Court’s inherent authority
does not extend to pre-litigation conduct. For this proposition, Grochocinski cites to Zapata
Hermanos Sucesores v. Hearthside Baking Co., 313 F.3d 385, 391 (7th Cir. 2002). Grochocinski,
however, misreads the holding of Zapata. The federal courts’ inherent authority may only be used
to punish misconduct “occurring in the litigation itself, not in the events giving rise to the litigation
(for then the punishment would be a product of substantive law—designed, for example, to deter
breaches of contract).” Zapata, 313 F.3d at 391; see also United States v. Fid. and Deposit Co. of
Md., 986 F.2d 1110, 1120 (7th Cir. 1993) (citing Chambers, 501 U.S. at 53 and finding “[w]hile a
court has the authority to preserve the integrity and, indeed the viability, of the judicial process, it
does not have the prerogative to create substantive law by adding remedies not otherwise provided
by law.”). But the phrase “the events giving rise to the litigation” in this context means the
underlying conduct that sparked the litigation, not the parties’ investigation into the claims and the
decision to file suit. Thus, the Court cannot sanction SC or Spehar, if they were parties, for their
conduct in the California lawsuit or even their decision to file the bankruptcy petition against
9
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/30/11 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:5550
CMGT, just as the Court could not sanction a defendant in a breach of contract case for breaching
the contract. The Court’s inherent power does extend, however, to Grochocinski’s investigation into
Mayer Brown’s actions and his decision to file this lawsuit. See Carr v. Tillery, 591 F.3d 909, 91920 (7th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted) (while § 1927 “is inapplicable to ‘misconduct that occurs before
the case appears on the federal court’s docket,’” the limitations of § 1927 do not apply to the court’s
exercise of its inherent power); c.f. Mach, 580 F.3d at 501 (quotations omitted) (“[B]ad faith may
occur beyond the filing of the case and may be found not only in the actions that led to the lawsuit,
but also in the conduct of the litigation.”); Manez, 533 F.3d at 585 (“The fact that some of the
conduct that ultimately gave rise to the filing in the U.S. court took place outside the United States
. . . does not deprive the court of its competence to adjudicate this matter.”). Accordingly, the Court
rejects Grochocinski’s argument that it could not use its inherent power to sanction the conduct at
issue here.
Because Grochocinski’s conduct was merely negligent, he cannot be personally liable for
sanctions in this case. “A trustee may be held personally liable only for a willful and deliberate
violation of his fiduciary duties.” Chicago Pac., 773 F.2d at 915 (7th Cir. 1985); see also Maxwell
v. KPMG LLP, No. 07-2819, 2008 WL 6140730, at *4 (7th Cir. Aug. 19, 2008) (citing Chicago
Pacific and concluding that, because the bankruptcy trustee had not engaged in willful or deliberate
misconduct, he could not be personally liable for sanctions). In Maxwell, the court addressed
whether bankruptcy trustee could be personally liable for sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal
pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. Id. at *1. The court found it persuasive that
the trustee retained counsel to investigate and, if appropriate, pursue legal claims against the
defendants in that case. Id. at *4. It noted that the trustee did not have any “professional expertise
10
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/30/11 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:5551
in the areas of accounting or auditing malpractice, and so—though he regularly consulted with
counsel and the experts they recommended and monitored the litigation—he ultimately relied upon
counsel’s judgment that th[e] lawsuit and the subsequent appeal were in the best interests of [the
estate’s] creditors.” Id. Citing Chicago Pacific, the court ultimately concluded even though
sanctions would be appropriate, the trustee himself could not be personally liable because he had not
willfully violated his fiduciary duties. Id.
Similarly, Grochocinski cannot be personally liable for sanctions here because he did not
willfully violate his fiduciary duties. To be sure, from the time he was appointed trustee—at
random—for the CMGT estate, the majority of Grochocinski’s work was done solely for the benefit
of SC, not CMGT’s other creditors. After he received very little information about the possible
assets of CMGT at the time he was appointed, Grochocinski was immediately contacted by Spehar
about filing a legal malpractice action against Mayer Brown so that SC, in turn, could collect on the
default judgment. Instead of seeking to have the California judgment vacated, Grochocinski bought
Spehar’s story, accepted Spehar’s money to help pay for the administrative costs, and had
Joyce—Spehar’s hand-picked malpractice attorney—appointed as special counsel. Grochocinski
admits that once Joyce was appointed, he turned over his limited notes on the case and made no
further efforts to investigate the malpractice claim against Mayer Brown. Lacking knowledge of the
factual and legal bases for the lawsuit, Grochocinski nonetheless approved Joyce’s draft complaint
and allowed him to file this case. Grochocinski was content to rely on Joyce’s advice on all matters
relating to this lawsuit.
While Grochocinski’s work was sloppy and negligent, it did not cross the line into willful
or deliberate breach of his fiduciary duties. The Bankruptcy Code specifically provides for the
11
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/30/11 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:5552
employment of special counsel, with the court’s approval, “to represent or assist the trustee in
carrying out the trustee’s duties under [the Code].” See 11 U.S.C. § 327(a). Like the trustee in
Maxwell, Grochocinski, who lacked any professional expertise in malpractice lawsuits, ultimately
relied on Joyce’s counsel that this lawsuit was in the best interest of CMGT’s creditors.
Grochocinski’s reliance on special counsel to investigate and prosecute the case with little oversight
is evidence that he was negligent in his fiduciary duties, not that he acted willfully and deliberately.
Accordingly, he is not personally liable for sanctions here.2
II.
Joyce
Mayer Brown seeks sanctions against Joyce pursuant to both the Court’s inherent authority
and § 1927. Although a court’s inherent power may be limited by statute or rule, such rules do not
“displace[] the inherent power to impose sanctions for . . . bad-faith conduct . . . .” Chambers, 501
U.S. at 46; see also Mach, 580 F.3d at 501 (quoting Methode Elecs., Inc. v. Adam Techs., Inc., 371
F.3d 923, 927 (7th Cir. 2004)) (noting that the Federal Rules have not “robbed” courts of their
inherent power to impose sanctions). Nevertheless, because “the inherent power of the court ‘is a
residual authority, to be exercised sparingly,’ and only when other rules do not provide sufficient
basis for sanctions,” the Court will first determine whether Joyce’s conduct is sanctionable under §
1927. See Dal Pozzo v. Basic Mach. Co., Inc., 463 F.3d 609, 614 (7th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted);
Kovilic Const. Co., 106 F.3d at 772-73 (a court’s inherent power must be invoked with caution,
particularly where the matter “is governed by other procedural rules, lest . . . the restrictions in those
rules become meaningless”).
2
Alternatively, the Court notes that it need not rely on Maxwell in this case because Grochocinski’s conduct,
while negligent, is also not enough to warrant sanctions under the Court’s inherent authority. See Kovilic Const. Co.,
106 F.3d at 773 (appellate courts have upheld exercise of a court’s inherent authority where the conduct was in bad faith
or fraud, but rejecting it when the conduct was “questionable, but not egregious, unduly dilatory, or contumacious.”).
12
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/30/11 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:5553
Section 1927 provides that an attorney “who so multiplies the proceedings in any case
unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs,
expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
Section 1927 sanctions are appropriate in situations in which “counsel acted recklessly, counsel
raised baseless claims despite notice of the frivolous nature of these claims, or counsel otherwise
showed indifference to statutes, rules, or court orders.” Kotsilieris v. Chalmers, 966 F.2d 1181,
1184-85 (7th Cir. 1992) (collecting cases).
While more than a showing of ordinary negligence is necessary to support an award of
sanctions under § 1927, “the bad faith standard has an objective component, and extremely negligent
conduct, like reckless and indifferent conduct, satisfies this standard.” Id. at 1185. Accordingly, a
finding of subjective bad faith is only necessary “if the conduct under consideration had an
objectively colorable basis.” Dal Pozzo, 463 F.3d at 614. Otherwise, objective bad faith will suffice.
Objective bad faith “does not require a finding of malice or ill will; reckless indifference to the law
will qualify.” Id. “‘If a lawyer pursues a path that a reasonably careful attorney would have known,
after appropriate inquiry, to be unsound, the conduct is objectively unreasonable and vexatious.’”
Id. (quoting Riddle & Assocs. P.C. v. Kelly, 414 F.3d 832, 835 (7th Cir. 2005)); see also Walter v.
Fiorenzo, 840 F.2d 427, 433 (7th Cir. 1988) (quotations and emphasis omitted) (a court may impose
sanctions under this section where an attorney “has acted in an objectively unreasonable manner by
engaging in a serious and studied disregard for the orderly process of justice, or where a claim is
without a plausible legal or factual basis and lacking in justification.”). When determining whether
an attorney’s actions were objectively reasonable, the “may infer intent from a total lack of factual
or legal basis for a suit.” Id. (quotation omitted).
13
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/30/11 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:5554
As alluded to above, § 1927 does not apply to “‘misconduct that occurs before the case
appears on the federal court’s docket,’ or in other words to ‘improper conduct in the run up to
litigation.’” Carr, 591 F.3d at 919 (quoting Bender v. Freed, 436 F.3d 747, 751 (7th Cir. 2006)).
Accordingly, the Court may only sanction Joyce under this statute for conduct that occurred after the
Mayer Brown removed this case to federal court. In other words, sanctions are only available for
Joyce’s decision to persist in this lawsuit after Mayer Brown raised its “unclean hands” defense and
for Edward Joyce’s unprofessional behavior during Grochocinski’s deposition.
The Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise its discretion to impose § 1927 sanctions on
Joyce for continuing the suit after Mayer Brown raised its “unclean hands” defense. Joyce’s
responses to Mayer Brown’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment were not frivolous. The
Court declined to dismiss the case, finding that discovery was necessary to determine if the “unclean
hands” defense had merit. The Court ultimately granted Mayer Brown’s motion for summary
judgment under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, without passing judgment on whether, in fact,
Mayer Brown committed malpractice. Judicial estoppel, while tailor-made for a case like this, is not
a commonly used doctrine.
Edward Joyce’s conduct in Grochocinski’s deposition is another matter. As the Court found
in its March 31, 2010 Opinion, during that key deposition Joyce repeatedly obstructed questioning
with improper interruptions, objections, insults (“You’re either hard of hearing or dumb”), and
accusations that Mayer Brown’s motions were “a fraud.” His unprofessional and childish behavior
culminated with a threat to Mayer Brown’s counsel: “Could you imagine if [another lawyer] was
defending this dep? There would be a footprint on your head right now.” (Op. at 23-24.) Joyce’s
behavior cannot be excused as zealously defending his client - it is obvious he was improperly trying
14
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/30/11 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:5555
to make it harder for Mayer Brown’s counsel to reach the truth. In his opposition to Mayer Brown’s
motion, Joyce does not defend Joyce’s behavior at the deposition; it notes only that it ultimately won
the only discovery dispute fully adjudicated on the merits. In short, attorneys that behave
unprofessionally during depositions make litigation harder on lawyers, parties, and courts and—most
importantly—may prevent the truth from coming out. See In re Rimsat, Ltd., 212 F.3d 1039, 1043
(7th Cir. 2000) (upholding sanctions for improper conduct during depositions and collecting cases
finding the same). Pursuant to § 1927, and recognizing that Mayer Brown would have taken
Grochocinski’s deposition in any event, the Court finds that the excess amount of attorneys’ fees and
costs that resulted from Joyce’s conduct is one-half of the legal fees Mayer Brown paid for its
counsel to prepare for and take Grochocinski’s deposition. Joyce must also pay one-half the costs
of the deposition. In addition, to ensure Mayer Brown is not worse off for bringing a successful
sanctions motion, he must pay one-half of the legal fees Mayer Brown incurred in bringing and
briefing this motion (the other half of the fees were presumably spent on Grochocinski).
A court’s inherent power to impose sanctions for bad-faith conduct is broader than § 1927
as it “extends to a full range of litigation abuses.” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 46; see also Carr, 591
F.3d at 920 (the court’s interpretation of § 1927 “does not leave victims of unreasonable and
vexatious litigation remediless . . . . The limitations of section 1927 do not apply to the exercise of
that [inherent] power.”). Thus, the Court must determine whether Joyce acted in bad faith,
vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons during the investigation and filing of this
malpractice lawsuit.
See Chambers, 501 U.S. at 45-46. For similar reasons as above, and
recognizing that the Court’s inherent power should be used sparingly, the Court declines to enter
sanctions beyond those outlined above. Even if the malpractice claims against Mayer Brown were
15
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 247 Filed: 06/30/11 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:5556
destined to fail, the Court has not found they are frivolous. The Court expects that tangible and
intangible costs imposed by this order will be sufficient to deter such improper conduct in the future.
See Kapco v. C & O Enters., 886 F.2d 1485, 1496 (7th Cir. 1989) (finding that “the amount of the
sanction must be a carefully measured response to the sanctioned conduct,” upholding the district
court’s imposition of sanctions to punish an attorney, and recognizing that “the imposition of
sanctions carries intangible costs for the punished lawyer.”).
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, and pursuant to both § 1927 and its inherent power to enter
sanctions, the Court denies the Mayer Brown’s motion for sanctions as to Grochocinski, and grants
in part Mayer Brown’s motion as to Joyce. By July 8, 2011, Mayer Brown must file its fee petition
detailing: (1) one-half the attorneys’ fees and costs it incurred in preparing for and taking
Grochocinski’s deposition; (2) one-half of the Grochocinski deposition costs; and (3) one-half the
attorney’s fees and costs it incurred to bring the sanctions motion. Any response to the bill of costs
is due July 22, 2011.
________________________________________
Virginia M. Kendall
United States District Judge
Northern District of Illinois
Date: June 30, 2011
16
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 255 Filed: 10/17/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:5611
Order Form (01/2005)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge
Virginia M. Kendall
CASE NUMBER
06 C 5486
CASE
TITLE
Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge
DATE
10/17/2011
David Grochocinski vs. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP et al
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
For these reasons, the Court orders Joyce to pay Mayer Brown $10,712.34 in attorneys’ fees and $1,438.58 in
costs connection with the Grochocinski deposition, as well as $24,984.90 in attorneys’ fees to brief the
motion for sanctions, for a total of $37,135.82.
O[ For further details see text below.]
Docketing to mail notices.
STATEMENT
On June 30, 2010, the Court entered an order sanctioning Edward T. Joyce & Associates (“Joyce”),
counsel to David Grochocinski in his capacity as Chapter 7 trustee, bankruptcy estate of CMGT, Inc., for
obstructive and childish tactics during Grochocinski’s deposition. (See Doc. 247.) Specifically, the Court
ordered Joyce to pay one half of the attorneys’ fees and costs defendants Mayer Brown LLP and Ronald
Given (together “Mayer Brown”) paid to have their attorneys prepare for and taking Grochocinski’s
deposition, as well as one half of the fees Mayer Brown incurred to bring the sanctions motion and its
accompanying briefing.
Mayer Brown submitted a fee petition indicating that it spent $21,424.68 in attorneys’ fees to take the
Grochocinski deposition, $2,877.17 in costs related to the deposition, and $49,969.80 in attorneys’ fees in
connection with the briefing on the sanctions motion. Joyce does not dispute that it owes $10,712.34 for the
first category and $1,438.58 for the second category, as directed by the Court’s June 30 order. However,
Joyce asserts that it should not have to pay one half of the briefing costs ($24,984.90) because only a limited
portion of Mayer Browns’ sanctions briefing dealt with Joyce’s conduct at the deposition.
One half of the briefing fees appropriately reflects how Joyce’s tactics multiplied the proceedings by
precipitating Mayer Brown’s sanctions motion holding him to account for those tactics. See 28 U.S.C. §
1927 (authorizing sanctions against an attorney “who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably
and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’
fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.”); Kotsilieris v. Chalmers, 966 F.2d 1181, 1184-85 (7th
Cir. 1992) (finding Section 1927 sanctions are appropriate in situations in which “counsel acted recklessly,
counsel raised baseless claims despite notice of the frivolous nature of these claims, or counsel otherwise
showed indifference to statutes, rules, or court orders.”) As the Court recognized in its June 30 order, Mayer
Brown should not be penalized for bringing a successful sanctions motion, and the Court only required Joyce
06C5486 David Grochocinski vs. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP et al
Page 1 of 2
Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 255 Filed: 10/17/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:5612
STATEMENT
to pay one half of the briefing fees because Mayer Brown sought, as part of the same motion, sanctions
against Grochocinski as well as Joyce. As for the argument that only one of Mayer Brown’s grounds for
sanctions against Joyce was ultimately successful, Mayer Brown’s motion was not frivolous and Mayer
Brown should also not be penalized for presenting alternative grounds for sanctions.
06C5486 David Grochocinski vs. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP et al
Page 2 of 2
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 1 of 25
APPEAL, DENLOW, TERMED
United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06-cv-05486
Internal Use Only
Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP et al
Assigned to: Honorable Virginia M. Kendall
Case in other court: 10-02057
11-01393
Cause: 28:1441 Petition for Removal
Date Filed: 10/10/2006
Date Terminated: 03/31/2010
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
David Grochocinski
not individually but solely in his
capacity as the Chapter 7 Trustee for
the bankruptcy estate of CMGT, Inc.
represented by David Edward Morgans
Myers Carden & Sax, LLC
Thirty North LaSalle Street
Suite 2200
Chicago, Il 60602
(312) 345-7250
Fax: 312/345-7251
Email: dmorgans@mcstrial.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Arthur W. Aufmann
Edward T. Joyce & Associates P.C.
135 S. LaSalle Street
Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 641-2600
Email: aaufmann@joycelaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward T. Joyce
Edward T. Joyce & Associates P.C.
135 S. LaSalle Street
Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 641-2600
Fax: (312) 641-0360
Email: ejoyce@joycelaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D Carroll
Edward T. Joyce & Associates P.C.
135 S. LaSalle Street
Suite 2200
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 2 of 25
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 641-2600
Fax: (312) 641-0360
Email: rcarroll@joycelaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP
represented by Mitchell L. Marinello
Novack & Macey
100 North Riverside Plaza
Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 419-6900
Email:
mmarinello@novackandmacey.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Novack
Novack & Macey LLP
100 North Riverside Plaza
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 419-6900
Email: sn@novackandmacey.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J. Ciszewski
Novack & Macey
100 North Riverside Plaza
Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 419-6900
Email: stevec@novackandmacey.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Ronald B Given
represented by Stephen Novack
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Charles W Trautner
TERMINATED: 06/12/2007
Movant
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Gerard Spehar
Page 3 of 25
represented by Gerard Spehar
1625 Grandview Avenue
Glendale, CA 91201
(818) 247-0616
PRO SE
Movant
Ronald Holman
represented by Ronald Holman
4516 Baden Avenue
Chatsworth, CA 9134
(818) 298-6100
PRO SE
Date Filed
#
Docket Text
10/10/2006
1
NOTICE of Removal from Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, County
Department, Law Division, case number (2006 L 8944) filed by Mayer
Brown Rowe & Maw LLP with copies of summons and complaint. (vmj, )
(Entered: 10/12/2006)
10/10/2006
2
CIVIL Cover Sheet (vmj, ) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
10/10/2006
3
ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP by
Mitchell L. Marinello (vmj, ) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
10/10/2006
4
ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP by
Steven J. Ciszewski (vmj, ) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
10/10/2006
5
(Court only) RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid on 10/10/2006 in
the amount of $350.00, receipt number 10644027 (vmj, ) (Entered:
10/12/2006)
10/12/2006
MAILED Letter regarding notice of removal with an attorney appearance
form to Edward T. Joyce, plaintiff's counsel. (vmj, ) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
10/17/2006
6
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff David Grochocinski by Robert D
Carroll (Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
10/17/2006
7
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff David Grochocinski by Arthur W.
Aufmann (Aufmann, Arthur) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
10/17/2006
8
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff David Grochocinski by Edward T.
Joyce (Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
10/20/2006
9
2 SUMMONS and 2 copies Issued as to Defendants Ronald B Given, Charles
W Trautner (vmj, ) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
11/21/2006
10
MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given
for leave to file excess pages Unopposed Motion for Leave to File TwentyPage Brief (Marinello, Mitchell) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
11/21/2006
11
NOTICE of Motion by Mitchell L. Marinello for presentment of motion for
leave to file excess pages 10 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 4 of 25
11/28/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Marinello, Mitchell) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
11/21/2006
12
Amended NOTICE of Motion by Mitchell L. Marinello for presentment of
motion for leave to file excess pages 10 before Honorable Virginia M.
Kendall on 11/28/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Marinello, Mitchell) (Entered:
11/21/2006)
11/27/2006
13
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall : Unopposed motion for
leave to file twenty-page brief 10 is granted. The presentment date of
11/28/2006 for said motion is hereby stricken. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered:
11/27/2006)
11/30/2006
14
ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP,
Ronald B Given by Stephen Novack (Novack, Stephen) (Entered:
11/30/2006)
11/30/2006
15
MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given
to dismiss (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
11/30/2006
16
MEMORANDUM by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given in
Support of motion to dismiss 15 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B# 2 Exhibit CE)(Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
11/30/2006
17
NOTICE of Motion by Stephen Novack for presentment of motion to dismiss
15 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/5/2006 at 09:00 AM.
(Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
12/04/2006
18
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall : Briefing schedule as to
motion to dismiss 15 set as follows: Responses due by 12/19/2006. Replies
due by 12/29/2006. The Court will rule by mail. The presentment date of
12/5/2006 for said motion is hereby stricken. Status hearing set for 1/30/2007
at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
12/04/2006
Set/Reset Hearings Status hearing set for 1/30/2007 at 09:00 AM. (gmr, )
(Entered: 12/04/2006)
12/15/2006
19
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for extension of time to file
response/reply to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Carroll, Robert) (Entered:
12/15/2006)
12/15/2006
20
NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for presentment of motion for
extension of time to file response/reply 19 before Honorable Virginia M.
Kendall on 12/21/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
12/19/2006
21
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Motion for extension of
time to file response/reply regarding MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown
Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given to dismiss 15 19 is granted as follows:
Responses due by 1/5/2007. Replies due by 1/24/2007. The Court will rule by
mail. Status hearing set for 1/30/2007 is stricken and reset to 2/22/2007 at
9:00 AM.Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
12/19/2006
(Court only) Set/Reset Hearings: Status hearing set for 2/22/2007 at 09:00
AM. (gmr, ) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 5 of 25
01/05/2007
22
RESPONSE by David Grochocinski to MOTION by Defendants Mayer
Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given to dismiss 15 (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit 1)(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
01/05/2007
23
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for leave to file excess pages
(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
01/05/2007
24
NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for presentment of motion for leave
to file excess pages 23 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 1/11/2007 at
09:00 AM. (Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
01/05/2007
25
RESPONSE by David Grochocinski to MOTION by Defendants Mayer
Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given to dismiss 15 (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit 1)(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
01/10/2007
26
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Motion for leave to file
excess pages 23 is granted to 26 pages. The presentment date of 1/11/2007 for
said motion is hereby stricken.Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
01/16/2007
27
MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given
for extension of time to file Reply Brief, MOTION by Defendants Mayer
Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given for leave to file excess pages
with Reply Brief (Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
01/16/2007
28
NOTICE of Motion by Steven J. Ciszewski for presentment of motion for
extension of time to file, motion for leave to file excess pages,, 27 before
Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 1/22/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Ciszewski,
Steven) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
01/19/2007
29
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Motion for extension of
time to file reply brief 27 is granted to and including 2/7/2007. Motion for
leave to file excess pages 27 is granted to 26 pages. Status hearing set for
2/22/2007 is stricken and reset to 3/14/2007 at 9:00 AM.Mailed notice (gmr, )
(Entered: 01/19/2007)
01/19/2007
(Court only) Set/Reset Hearings: Status hearing set for 3/14/2007 at 09:00
AM. (gmr, ) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
02/02/2007
30
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for extension of time to Serve
Defendant Charles W. Trautner (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-D)(Carroll,
Robert) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
02/02/2007
31
NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for presentment of extension of time
30 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 2/8/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Carroll,
Robert) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
02/07/2007
32
REPLY by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given to MOTION
by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given to dismiss
15 (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
02/08/2007
33
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Motion hearing held.
Motion for extension of time to serve Defendant Charles W. Trautner 30 is
granted to and including 4/9/2007.Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered:
02/08/2007)
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 6 of 25
03/07/2007
34
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :At the Court's direction,
status hearing set for 3/14/2007 is stricken and reset to 3/28/2007 at 09:00
AM.Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
03/14/2007
35
ALIAS Summons Issued as to Charles W Trautner. (td, ) (Entered:
03/15/2007)
03/28/2007
36
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Status hearing held and
continued to 5/16/2007 at 09:00 AM. Counsel shall file position papers as
discussed on the record by 4/18/2007.Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered:
03/28/2007)
04/09/2007
37
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for extension of time (Second) to
Serve Defendant Charles W. Trautner (Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
04/09/2007
38
NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for presentment of extension of time
37 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 4/17/2007 at 09:00 AM.
(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
04/17/2007
39
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Motion hearing held.
Motion for extension of time to Serve Defendant Charles W. Trautner 37 is
granted to and including 6/8/2007. Final Extension. Status hearing set for
5/16/2007 is stricken and reset to 6/11/2007 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice
(gmr, ) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
04/17/2007
40
ALIAS Summons one Original and one copy on Issued as to Charles W.
Trautner. (hp, ) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
04/18/2007
41
Plaintiff's Position Paper Regarding Referral to the Bankruptcy Court by
David Grochocinski (Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
04/18/2007
42
Lawyer Defendants' Position Statement Regarding Possible Referral to
Bankruptcy Judge STATEMENT by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP,
Ronald B Given (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Novack, Stephen) (Entered:
04/18/2007)
05/11/2007
43
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :At the Court's direction,
status hearing set for 6/11/2007 is stricken and reset to 6/18/2007 at 09:00
AM.Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
06/08/2007
44
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by David Grochocinski (Carroll, Robert)
(Entered: 06/08/2007)
06/12/2007
45
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall : Pursuant to the Notice of
Rule 41(a)(1)(I) Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, Defendant Charles
W.Trautner is hereby dismissed without prejudice. Mailed notice (hp, )
(Entered: 06/12/2007)
06/13/2007
46
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :At the Court's direction,
status hearing set for 6/18/2007 is stricken and reset to 6/25/2007 at 09:00
AM.Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 06/13/2007)
06/25/2007
47
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Status hearing held and
continued to 12/31/2007 at 09:00 AM. Fact Discovery ordered closed by
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 7 of 25
12/21/2007. Expert Discovery ordered closed by 2/7/2008. Any dispositive
motions shall be filed by 3/7/2008. Responses due by 4/7/2008. Replies due
by 4/21/2008. The Court will rule by mail.Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered:
06/28/2007)
06/28/2007
48
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :For the reasons set out in
the Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Lawyer Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss 15 is granted in part and denied in part.Mailed notice (gmr, )
(Entered: 06/28/2007)
06/28/2007
49
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge Virginia M. Kendall
on 6/28/2007:Mailed notice(gmr, ) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
07/13/2007
50
MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given
for reconsideration regarding order on motion to dismiss, text entry 48 ,
memorandum opinion and order 49 and/or for other relief (Novack, Stephen)
(Entered: 07/13/2007)
07/13/2007
51
NOTICE of Motion by Stephen Novack for presentment of motion for
reconsideration, motion for relief,, 50 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall
on 7/19/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
07/19/2007
52
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Motion hearing held.
Briefing schedule regarding motion for reconsideration and motion for relief
50 set as follows: Responses due by 8/9/2007. Replies due by 8/23/2007. The
Court will rule by mail.Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
08/09/2007
53
RESPONSE by David Grochocinskiin Opposition to MOTION by
Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given for
reconsideration regarding order on motion to dismiss, text entry 48 ,
memorandum opinion and order 49 and/or for other relief 50 (Carroll,
Robert) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
08/23/2007
54
REPLY by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given to response in
opposition to motion, 53 , MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe &
Maw LLP, Ronald B Given for reconsideration regarding order on motion to
dismiss, text entry 48 , memorandum opinion and order 49 and/or for other
relief 50 (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
08/30/2007
55
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to strike Portions of Defendants
Reply in Support of Their Motion to Reconsider (Carroll, Robert) (Entered:
08/30/2007)
08/30/2007
56
NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for presentment of motion to strike
55 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 9/6/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Carroll,
Robert) (Entered: 08/30/2007)
09/05/2007
57
RESPONSE by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Givenin
Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to strike Portions of
Defendants Reply in Support of Their Motion to Reconsider 55 (Novack,
Stephen) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
09/05/2007
58
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Motion to strike 55 is
denied. The presentment date of 9/6/2007 for said motion is hereby stricken.
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 8 of 25
Oral argument set for 9/13/2007 at 10:00 AM. Said hearing is set for 30
minutes (15 minutes per side). Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
09/06/2007
59
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :By agreement of counsel,
Oral Argument set for 9/13/2007 is stricken and reset to 9/26/2007 at 10:00
AM. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
09/18/2007
60
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for leave to file Cite Additional
Authority, Previously Unavailable Authority During Oral Argument
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
09/18/2007
61
NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for presentment of motion for leave
to file 60 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 9/26/2007 at 10:00 AM.
(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
09/21/2007
62
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Plaintiff's motion for leave
to cite additional previously unavailable authority during oral argument 60 is
granted. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
09/26/2007
63
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Oral argument held on
9/26/2007. Motion for reconsideration 50 is taken under advisement. Mailed
notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
10/09/2007
64
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Status hearing set for
10/16/2007 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
10/16/2007
65
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Status hearing held on
10/16/2007. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 10/18/2007)
10/25/2007
66
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Status hearing set for
10/30/2007 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
10/30/2007
67
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Status hearing held. For
the reasons stated on the record in open court, motion for reconsideration 50
is denied. Discovery regarding "unclean hands" ordered closed by 1/28/2008.
Any motion for summary judgment shall be filed by 2/28/2008. Responses
due by 3/28/2008. Replies due by 4/11/2008. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered:
10/30/2007)
10/30/2007
(Court only) Set eadlines as to Responses due by 3/28/2008 Replies due by
4/11/2008. (hp, ) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
11/06/2007
68
Plaintiff's Request to Admit to Defendant Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP
by David Grochocinski (Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
11/06/2007
69
Plaintiff's Request to Admit to Defendant Ronald B. Given by David
Grochocinski (Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
12/03/2007
70
RESPONSE by Defendant Ronald B Given to Plaintiff's Request to Admit
(Marinello, Mitchell) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
12/03/2007
71
RESPONSE by Defendant Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP to Plaintiff's
Request to Admit (Marinello, Mitchell) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
12/07/2007
72
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for protective order (Attachments:
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 9 of 25
# 1 Exhibit A)(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
12/07/2007
73
NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for presentment of motion for
protective order 72 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/13/2007 at
09:00 AM. (Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
12/11/2007
74
RESPONSE by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Givenin
Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for protective order
72 (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
12/12/2007
75
REPLY by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to motion for protective order 72 in
Support of (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Carroll, Robert) (Entered:
12/12/2007)
12/13/2007
76
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall : Hearing held re motion
for a protective order 72 . Deadline to complete discovery is extended to
03/3/08. Case is referred to Magistrate Judge Denlow for issues relating to
discovery on this motion. Parties are to produce a privilege log to Judge
Denlow no later than 3/10/08. Case set for Further Status hearing before
Judge Kendall on 3/19/2008 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice. (kw, ) (Entered:
12/13/2007)
12/13/2007
77
Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1, this case is hereby referred to the calendar of
Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow for the purpose of holding proceedings
related to: discovery supervision.(kw, )Mailed notice. (Entered: 12/13/2007)
12/13/2007
(Court only) MOTIONS REFERRED: MOTION by Plaintiff David
Grochocinski for protective order 72 . (rp, ) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
12/17/2007
78
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall : To clarify minute entry #
76 from the hearing regarding Plaintiff's motion for a protective order, the
expedited referral to Magistrate Judge Denlow for all discovery 77 includes a
referral to Magistrate Judge Denlow for determination of Plaintiff's Motion
for a protective order 72 . Mailed notice. (kw, ) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
12/17/2007
79
MINUTE entry before Judge Morton Denlow :This case has been referred to
Judge Denlow to conduct a settlement conference. The parties are directed to
review and to comply with Judge Denlow's Standing Order Setting Settlement
Conference. Copies are available in chambers or through Judge Denlow's web
page at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Judge Denlow requires full compliance with
this standing order before conducting a settlement conference. Failure to
comply with the provisions of the Court's Standing Order Setting Settlement
Conference may result in the unilateral cancellation of the settlement
conference by the Court. The parties shall jointly contact the courtroom
deputy, Donna Kuempel at 312/435-5857, with mutually agreeable dates or
appear at 10:00 a.m. on 1/15/08 to set a settlement conference date. Because
of the volume of settlement conferences conducted by Judge Denlow, once a
settlement conference date has been agreed upon, no continuance will be
granted without a motion showing extreme hardship. Parties are required to
deliver to chambers or fax to chambers (312/554-8547) copies of their most
recent settlement demands and offers at least three (3) business days prior to
the settlement conference.Mailed notice (dmk, ) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 10 of 25
12/18/2007
80
MINUTE entry before Judge Morton Denlow :Status hearing reset to
1/17/2008 at 10:00 AM. on request of the parties in Courtroom 1350. Parties
shall deliver a copy of an initial status report to chambers, Room 1356, five
business days before the initial status hearing. If the parties have recently
prepared and filed an initial status report, the submission of the previously
filed initial status report is sufficient. The parties are directed to review and to
comply with Judge Denlow's standing order setting initial status report.
Copies are available in chambers or through Judge Denlow's web page at
www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Status hearing set for 1/15/08 is stircken.Mailed
notice (dmk, ) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
01/09/2008
81
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall : On the Court's own
motion, the Status hearing currently set for 3/19 is stricken and reset to
Wednesday, 3/26/2008 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice. (kw, ) (Entered:
01/09/2008)
01/10/2008
82
STATUS Report by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1-5)(Marinello, Mitchell) (Entered:
01/10/2008)
01/17/2008
83
MINUTE entry before Judge Morton Denlow :Magistrate Judge Status
hearing held on 1/17/2008. Plaintiff's brief concerning privilege log due by
2/20/08. Defendants brief due by 3/26/08. Plaintiff's reply due 4/9/08. Oral
argument set for 4/23/2008 at 10:00 AM. regarding privilege log.Mailed
notice (dmk, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
02/13/2008
84
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for leave to file excess pages of 15
of Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of His Privilege Log Assertions
(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
02/13/2008
85
NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for presentment of motion for leave
to file excess pages 84 before Honorable Morton Denlow on 2/20/2008 at
09:15 AM. (Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
02/14/2008
86
MINUTE entry before Judge Morton Denlow :Motion for leave to file excess
pages 84 is granted. Motion hearing set for 2/20/08 is stricken. Motions
terminated: Mailed notice (dmk, ) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
02/18/2008
87
MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given
for extension of time to complete discovery regarding "unclean hands,"
"unjust result" or "fraud on the court" defenses (Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered:
02/18/2008)
02/18/2008
88
NOTICE of Motion by Steven J. Ciszewski for presentment of motion for
extension of time to complete discovery 87 before Honorable Virginia M.
Kendall on 2/26/2008 at 09:00 AM. (Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered:
02/18/2008)
02/19/2008
89
MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall : The Unopposed Motion
for extension of time to complete discovery 87 is granted. Discovery
regarding the Defenses shall be completed by 7/31/2008. The status hearing
previously set for 3/26/08 is stricken and reset for 8/5/2008 at 09:00 AM. The
2/26/08 presentment date for said motion is stricken; no appearance is
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 11 of 25
required. Mailed notice. (kw, ) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
02/20/2008
90
Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of His Privilege Log Assertions by David
Grochocinski (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4
Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9#
10 Exhibit 10)(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
03/24/2008
91
MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given
for leave to file excess pages and to reset oral argument date (Ciszewski,
Steven) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
03/24/2008
92
NOTICE of Motion by Steven J. Ciszewski for presentment of motion for
leave to file excess pages 91 before Honorable Morton Denlow on 3/26/2008
at 09:15 AM. (Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
03/25/2008
93
MINUTE entry before Judge Honorable Morton Denlow:Unopposed Motion
for leave to file 26-page brief and reset oral argument date 91 is granted. Oral
argument reset to 5/14/08 at 10:00 AM. regarding privilege log. Oral
argument set for 4/23/08 is stricken. Motion hearing set for 3/26/08 is
stricken. Motions terminated: Mailed notice (dmk, ) (Entered: 03/25/2008)
03/26/2008
94
RESPONSE by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given to other, 90 Plaintiff's privilege log assertions (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A-C, # 2 Exhibit D-F)(Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
04/09/2008
95
REPLY by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to other, 90 in Support of His
Memorandum in Support of His Privilege Log Assertions (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit 1, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
05/14/2008
96
MINUTE entry before Judge Honorable Morton Denlow:Oral argument held
on 5/14/2008 regarding privilege log. Motion taken under advisement. Ruling
by mail on or by 6/4/08.Mailed notice (dmk, ) (Entered: 05/14/2008)
05/19/2008
97
Plaintiff's Submission Regarding Dexia Credit Local v. Rogan by David
Grochocinski (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Carroll, Robert)
(Entered: 05/19/2008)
05/20/2008
98
MEMORANDUM Response 94 by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald
B Given Supplemental Memorandum Regarding 2005 Dexia Credit Opinion
(Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
06/04/2008
99
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Morton Denlow:On the Court's request,
the ruling regarding privilege log is due on or by 6/11/08. Ruling date of
6/4/08 is stricken.Mailed notice (dmk, ) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
06/09/2008
100
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Morton Denlow:Plaintiff's Motion for
protective order 72 is granted in part and denied in part. Enter Memorandum
Opinions and Order. All matters relating to the referral of this action having
been resolved, the case is returned to the assigned judge.Case no longer
referred to Honorable Morton Denlow.; Motions terminated: ; JMailed notice
(dmk, ) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
06/09/2008
101
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Morton
Denlow on 6/9/2008:Mailed notice(dmk, ) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 12 of 25
06/23/2008
102
MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given
for extension of time (Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
06/23/2008
103
NOTICE of Motion by Steven J. Ciszewski for presentment of extension of
time 102 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 6/26/2008 at 09:00 AM.
(Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
06/23/2008
104
Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate Denlow's Memorandum Opinion and Order
Dated June 9, 2008 by David Grochocinski (Attachments: # 1 Errata Exhibit
1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5
Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit
Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 10)(Carroll, Robert)
(Entered: 06/23/2008)
06/23/2008
105
Notice of Objection NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for presentment
of before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 6/26/2008 at 09:00 AM. (Carroll,
Robert) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
06/24/2008
106
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Plaintiff's
objections to the magistrate judge's memorandum opinion and order dated
6/9/2008 are taken under advisement. Any responses are to be filed by
7/11/2008. No reply is necessary. Court will rule by mail.Mailed notice
(jms, ) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
06/26/2008
107
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Defendant's
telephonic request for an extension of time to 7/18/2008 to file a response to
plaintiff's objections to the magistrate's memorandum opinion and order dated
6/9/2008 is granted. Court will rule by mail.Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered:
06/26/2008)
06/26/2008
108
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Defendant's
motion for an extension of time to file objections to the magistrate judge's
alternative ruling in the memorandum opinion and order dated 6/9/2008 is
taken under advisement. Court will rule on the motion when it rules on the
objections to the magistrate judge's memorandum opinion and order dated
6/9/2008.Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
07/07/2008
(Court only) ***Motions terminated: MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown
Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given for extension of time 102 (jms, )
(Entered: 07/07/2008)
07/11/2008
109
MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given
to reset Discovery Deadline regarding the Defenses (Ciszewski, Steven)
(Entered: 07/11/2008)
07/11/2008
110
NOTICE of Motion by Steven J. Ciszewski for presentment of motion to reset
109 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 7/17/2008 at 09:00 AM.
(Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
07/14/2008
111
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Defendants'
unopposed motion to reset discovery deadline 109 is granted. Discovery
regarding the defenses shall be completed by 10/31/2008. Status hearing date
of 8/5/2008 is reset for 11/4/2008 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice (jms, )
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 13 of 25
(Entered: 07/14/2008)
07/18/2008
112
RESPONSE by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given to other, 104 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B)(Novack, Stephen)
(Entered: 07/18/2008)
07/24/2008
113
Plaintiff's Objection to Defendants' Previously Unopposed Motion for
Extension of Time by David Grochocinski (Carroll, Robert) (Entered:
07/24/2008)
07/24/2008
114
Notice of Objection NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for presentment
of before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 7/31/2008 at 09:00 AM. (Carroll,
Robert) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
07/28/2008
115
RESPONSE by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B.
Given to plaintiff's objection to defendants' previously unoppoed motion for
extension of time 113 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B)(Ciszewski, Steven)
(Text Modified by Clerk's Office on 7/29/2008) (hp, ). (Entered: 07/28/2008)
07/30/2008
116
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Plaintiff's
objection to defendant's previously unopposed motion for extension of time
and defendant's response are taken under advisement. Mailed notice (jms, )
(Entered: 07/30/2008)
10/22/2008
117
MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given
for extension of time to complete discovery regarding the
"Defenses" (Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
10/22/2008
118
NOTICE of Motion by Steven J. Ciszewski for presentment of motion for
extension of time to complete discovery 117 before Honorable Virginia M.
Kendall on 10/28/2008 at 09:00 AM. (Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered:
10/22/2008)
10/28/2008
119
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: Defendants are
given to 11/12/2008 to file objections to the alternative ruling. In addition,
Defendants unopposed motion to reset the discovery deadline is granted so
that discovery may be completed pending the resolution of these privilege
issues. Discovery is ordered closed January 31, 2009. Status hearing date of
11/4/2008 is reset for 2/3/2009 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered:
10/28/2008)
11/12/2008
120
MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
GivenObjection to Alternative Ruling in Magistrate Denlow's June 9, 2008
Memorandum Opinion and Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-C)(Novack,
Stephen) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
11/12/2008
121
NOTICE of Motion by Steven J. Ciszewski for presentment of motion for
miscellaneous relief 120 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on
11/18/2008 at 09:00 AM. (Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
11/13/2008
122
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: Defendants'
objection to the alternative ruling in Magistrate Judge Denlow's 6/9/2008
memorandum opinion and order is taken under advisement. Court will rule by
mail.Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 14 of 25
01/22/2009
123
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Sua sponte, status
hearing date of 2/3/2009 is reset for 2/12/2009 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice
(jms, ) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
01/30/2009
124
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: This Court intends
to adopt Judge Denlows alternative ruling. Defendants are given two weeks
from the date of this order to file objections to the alternative ruling. In
addition, Defendants Unopposed Motion to Reset the Discovery Deadline is
granted so that discovery may be completed pending the resolution of these
privilege issues. Discovery is ordered closed March 31, 2009.Mailed notice
(jms, ) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
01/30/2009
(Court only) Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery ordered closed by 3/31/2009.
(jms, ) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
02/02/2009
125
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: Sua sponte, status
hearing date of 2/12/2009 is reset for 3/31/2009 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice
(jms, ) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
02/13/2009
126
MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
GivenObjection to Alternative Ruling (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-C, # 2
Exhibit C contd., # 3 Exhibit D-G, # 4 Exhibit H, # 5 Exhibit I)(Novack,
Stephen) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
02/17/2009
127
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to strike MOTION by Defendants
Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B GivenObjection to Alternative
Ruling 126 Supplemental Objection (Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
02/17/2009
128
NOTICE of Motion by Edward T. Joyce for presentment of motion to strike,
motion for relief 127 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 2/23/2009 at
09:00 AM. (Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
02/20/2009
129
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: Having been
entered in error, this courts order dated January 30, 2009 [ doc # 124] is
vacated. This Court therefore adopts Judge Denlows alternative ruling.
Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 02/20/2009)
02/20/2009
130
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: Plaintiffs Motion
to Strike Defendants Supplemental Objections to Judge Denlows alternative
ruling [#127]is granted.. Discovery remains open until March 31, 2009.
Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 02/20/2009)
03/31/2009
131
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Status hearing held
on 3/31/2009. Defendants oral motion for an extension of fact discovery cutoff date is granted. Fact discovery ordered closed by 5/1/2009. Dispositive
motions with supporting memoranda due by 6/1/2009; Response due by
6/29/2009; Reply due by 7/20/2009.Mailed notice (tlp, ) (Entered:
03/31/2009)
05/08/2009
132
MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given
for leave to file excess pages (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
05/08/2009
133
NOTICE of Motion by Stephen Novack for presentment of motion for leave
to file excess pages 132 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 5/14/2009
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 15 of 25
at 09:00 AM. (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
05/12/2009
134
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Defendants'
unopposed motion for leave to file its summary judgment brief in excess of
15 pages and limited to 30 pages and for leave to file a Rule 56.1 statement
with 150 paragraphs 132 is granted. Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered:
05/12/2009)
05/29/2009
135
MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given
for summary judgment On Their Unclean Hands Defenses (Novack, Stephen)
(Entered: 05/29/2009)
05/29/2009
136
MEMORANDUM by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given in
support of motion for summary judgment 135 On Their Unclean Hands
Defenses (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Transcript of Proceedings)(Novack,
Stephen) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
05/29/2009
137
RULE 56.1(a) Statement by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given regarding motion for summary judgment 135 On Their Unclean Hands
Defenses (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
05/29/2009
138
APPENDIX Rule 56 statement 137 to Local Rule 56.1(a) Statement of
Undisputed Facts in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
Based on Their Unclean Hands Defenses (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Exhibit Exhibits B-F, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits G-I, # 4 Exhibit J Part 1, # 5
Exhibit J Part 2, # 6 Exhibit J Part 3, # 7 Exhibit J Part 4, # 8 Exhibit J Part 5,
# 9 Exhibit J Part 6, # 10 Exhibit J Part 7, # 11 Exhibit J Part 8, # 12 Exhibit J
Part 9, # 13 Exhibit J Part 10, # 14 Exhibit J Part 11, # 15 Exhibit J Part 12, #
16 Exhibit J Part 13, # 17 Exhibit J Part 14, # 18 Exhibit J Part 15, # 19
Exhibit J Part 16, # 20 Exhibit J Part 17, # 21 Exhibit K Part 1, # 22 Exhibit K
Part 2, # 23 Exhibit K Part 3, # 24 Exhibit K Part 4, # 25 Exhibit K Part 5)
(Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
06/19/2009
139
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to compel Production of
Documents (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4
Exhibit 4)(Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
06/19/2009
140
NOTICE of Motion by Edward T. Joyce for presentment of motion to compel
139 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 6/25/2009 at 09:00 AM.
(Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
06/19/2009
141
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for extension of time to file
response/reply Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit 1)(Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
06/19/2009
142
NOTICE of Motion by Edward T. Joyce for presentment of motion for
extension of time to file response/reply 141 before Honorable Virginia M.
Kendall on 6/25/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
06/19/2009
143
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for leave to file excess pages in
Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Local Rule 56.1
(b)(3)(C) (Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
06/19/2009
144
NOTICE of Motion by Edward T. Joyce for presentment of motion for leave
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 16 of 25
to file excess pages 143 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 6/25/2009
at 09:00 AM. (Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
06/23/2009
145
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Motion for
extension of time 141 to file response regarding motion by Defendants Mayer
Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given for summary judgment 135 is
granted. Response due by 7/13/2009. Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave
to file brief in excess pages 143 is granted.Mailed notice (tlp, ) (Entered:
06/23/2009)
06/24/2009
146
RESPONSE by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given to
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to compel Production of
Documents 139 (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
06/24/2009
(Court only) ***Deadlines terminated. (hp, ) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
06/24/2009
(Court only) ***Deadlines terminated. (hp, ) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
06/24/2009
147
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case referred to the Honorable
Morton Denlow. (See order for detail). Signed by Honorable Virginia M.
Kendall on 6/23/2009.(hp, ) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
06/29/2009
148
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Morton Denlow:This matter has been
referred to Judge Denlow for ruling on a pending motion. If no briefing
schedule has been set or if no briefing is desired, the parties are to notice the
motion up on Mondays or Wednesdays at 9:15 a.m. Judge Denlow does not
desire briefs on discovery disputes. Otherwise, the parties are to appear for
status or argument at 10:00 a.m. on 7/28/2009.Mailed notice (dmk, )
(Entered: 06/29/2009)
07/06/2009
149
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Morton Denlow:Motion to compel 139
is withdrawn by agreement of the parties. All matters relating to the referral
of this action having been resolved, the case is returned to the assigned judge.
Case no longer referred to Honorable Morton Denlow. Status hearing set for
7/28/09 is stricken.Mailed notice (dmk, ) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
07/13/2009
150
RESPONSE by David Grochocinskiin Opposition to MOTION by
Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given for summary
judgment On Their Unclean Hands Defenses 135 (Joyce, Edward) (Entered:
07/13/2009)
07/13/2009
151
RULE 56 1(b)(3)(A)-(B) Statement Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Local
Rule 56.1(a) Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Their Motion for
Summary Judgment Based on Their Unclean Hands Defenses (Joyce,
Edward) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
07/13/2009
152
RULE 56 (b)(3)(C) Statement in Support of His Response to Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment (Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
07/13/2009
153
APPENDIX response in opposition to motion 150 Volume 1 of 3
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-9, # 2 Exhibit 10-20, # 3 Exhibit 21-32, # 4
Exhibit 33-50)(Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
07/13/2009
154
APPENDIX response in opposition to motion 150 Volume 2 (Attachments: #
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 17 of 25
1 Exhibit 51-63, # 2 Exhibit 64-66, # 3 Exhibit 67-78, # 4 Exhibit 79-84, # 5
Exhibit 85-87)(Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
07/13/2009
155
APPENDIX response in opposition to motion 150 Volume 3 (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit 88-93, # 2 Exhibit 94, # 3 Exhibit 95-98, # 4 Exhibit 99-102, # 5
Exhibit 103-109)(Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
07/17/2009
156
MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given
for extension of time to file response/reply as to response in opposition to
motion 150 , motion for summary judgment 135 and for Leave to file
Oversize Reply (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 07/17/2009)
07/17/2009
157
MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given
for extension of time to file response/reply as to response in opposition to
motion 150 , motion for summary judgment 135 and for Leave to File
Oversize Reply -- Amended (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 07/17/2009)
07/17/2009
158
NOTICE of Motion by Stephen Novack for presentment of motion for
extension of time to file response/reply,, motion for relief,,, 157 before
Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 8/3/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Novack, Stephen)
(Entered: 07/17/2009)
07/17/2009
159
RESPONSE by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to Defendants Amended
Unoposed Motion for Extension of Time (Joyce, Edward) (Entered:
07/17/2009)
07/20/2009
160
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Defendants'
unopposed motions for an extension of time to 8/19/2009 to file a reply to
their motion for summary judgment and for leave to file a brief in excess of
15 pages are granted. The reply brief is limited to 20 pages.Mailed notice
(jms, ) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
08/04/2009
161
MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given
for leave to file excess pages (second) (Novack, Stephen) (Entered:
08/04/2009)
08/04/2009
162
NOTICE of Motion by Stephen Novack for presentment of motion for leave
to file excess pages 161 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 8/11/2009
at 09:00 AM. (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 08/04/2009)
08/05/2009
163
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Defendants'
motion for leave to file a 25 page reply brief 161 is granted.Mailed notice
(jms, ) (Entered: 08/05/2009)
08/19/2009
164
REPLY by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given to MOTION
by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given for
summary judgment On Their Unclean Hands Defenses 135 (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 08/19/2009)
08/19/2009
165
RULE 56 56.1(a) Statement by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given regarding motion for summary judgment 135 Reply to Plaintiff's Rule
56.1(b)(3)(C) Statement in Support of His Response to Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 08/19/2009)
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 18 of 25
08/25/2009
166
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for leave to file Sur-Reply to
Defendants' Three New Arguments or, Alternatively, to Open Merits
Discovery for a Limited Purpose (Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
08/25/2009
167
NOTICE of Motion by Edward T. Joyce for presentment of motion for leave
to file 166 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 9/3/2009 at 09:00 AM.
(Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
08/27/2009
168
RESPONSE by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Givenin
Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for leave to file SurReply to Defendants' Three New Arguments or, Alternatively, to Open Merits
Discovery for a Limited Purpose 166 (Novack, Stephen) (Entered:
08/27/2009)
08/31/2009
169
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:The Court has
sufficient briefing from the parties on the motion and no further briefing is
permitted. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply 166 is denied. Mailed
notice (jms, ) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
03/31/2010
170
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Pursuant to
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered this day, defendants' motion for
summary judgment 135 is granted. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice
(jms, ) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
03/31/2010
171
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Virginia M.
Kendall on 3/31/2010:Mailed notice(jms, ) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
03/31/2010
172
ENTERED JUDGMENT on 3/31/2010:Mailed notice(jms, ) (Entered:
03/31/2010)
04/28/2010
173
MOTION by Movant Gerard Spehar to Intervene (hp, ) (Entered: 04/29/2010)
04/28/2010
174
MOTION by Movant Gerard Spehar to alter judgment or amend by Movant
Gerard Spehar (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1 thru E, # 2
Attachment 2 - Affidavit F thru Decl. B, # 3 Attachment 3 - Decl. C thru
Exhibit 2 Motion, # 4 Attachment 4 - Exhibit 3 Motion thru 4 Motion, # 5
Attachment 5 - Exhibit 4 Motion - Part 2, # 6 Atttachment 6 - Exhibit J &
OL) (Poor Quality Original - Paper Document on File). (hp, ) (Entered:
04/29/2010)
04/29/2010
175
NOTICE of appeal by David Grochocinski regarding orders 171 , 172 Filing
fee $ 455, receipt number 0752-4767406. (Joyce, Edward) (Entered:
04/29/2010)
04/29/2010
176
MOTION by Defendants Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP
for sanctions (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 04/29/2010)
04/29/2010
177
MEMORANDUM by Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP in
support of motion for sanctions 176 (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 04/29/2010)
04/29/2010
178
NOTICE of Motion by Stephen Novack for presentment of motion for
sanctions 176 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 5/6/2010 at 09:00
AM. (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 04/29/2010)
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 19 of 25
04/30/2010
179
NOTICE of Appeal Due letter sent to counsel of record. (gej, ) (Entered:
04/30/2010)
04/30/2010
180
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on notice of appeal 175 .
Notified counsel (gej, ) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
04/30/2010
181
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal regarding
notice of appeal 175 ; USCA Case No. 10-2057 (hp, ) (Entered: 05/03/2010)
05/04/2010
182
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for leave to file Appearance
(Attachments: # 1 Appearance)(Morgans, David) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
05/04/2010
183
NOTICE of Motion by David Edward Morgans for presentment of motion for
leave to file 182 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 5/10/2010 at 09:00
AM. (Morgans, David) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
05/04/2010
184
LIMITED RATIFICATION of Ronald Holman. (hp, ) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
05/06/2010
(Court only) ***Deadlines terminated. (hp, ) (Entered: 05/13/2010)
05/07/2010
185
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff David Grochocinski by David Edward
Morgans (Morgans, David) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
05/07/2010
186
NOTICE by David Grochocinski OF FILING re 185 (Morgans, David)
Modified on 5/10/2010 (vmj, ). (Entered: 05/07/2010)
05/07/2010
187
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Motion hearing held.
Motion of attorney David E. Morgans for leave to file his appearance on
behalf of plaintiff 182 is granted. Briefing as to motion by movant Gerard
Spehar to intervene 173 is set as follows: Response due by 5/27/2010; reply
due by 6/10/2010. Briefing as to motion by defendants Ronald B. Given,
Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP for sanctions 176 is set as follows:
Response due by 6/3/2010; reply due by 6/24/2010. Leave is granted to file
response and reply briefs in excess of that page limit, up to 20 pages. Rulings
by mail. Motion by movant Gerard Spehar to alter judgment [174} is entered
and continued until the Court determines whether he will be allowed to
intervene. Mailed (vmj, ) (Entered: 05/10/2010)
05/07/2010
(Court only) Set Deadlines as to MOTION by Defendants Ronald B Given,
Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP for sanctions 176 . Responses due by
6/3/2010 Replies due by 6/24/2010. (vmj, ) (Entered: 05/10/2010)
05/12/2010
188
REQUEST by Plaintiff to Clerk of the District Court for Inclusion of Certain
Briefs and Memoranda in Record on Appeal Pursuant to Circuit Ruile 10(a)
by David Grochocinski (Joyce, Edward) (Test Modified on by the Clerk's
Office 5/13/2010). (hp, ). (Entered: 05/12/2010)
05/12/2010
190
SEVENTH CIRCUIT transcript information sheet by David Grochocinski
(Poor Quality Original - Paper Document on File.) (hp, ) Modified on
6/16/2010 (hp, ). (Entered: 05/14/2010)
05/12/2010
191
SEVENTH CIRCUIT transcript information sheet, for Magistrate Denlow by
David Grochocinski (hp, ) (Poor Quality Original - Paper Document on File.)
Modified on 6/16/2010 (hp, ). (Entered: 05/14/2010)
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 20 of 25
05/13/2010
189
DESIGNATION by Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP of
record on appeal : USCA Case No. 10-2057 (Novack, Stephen) (Entered:
05/13/2010)
05/13/2010
192
COPY of order dated 5/13/2010 from the USCA for the Seventh Circuit
regarding notice of appeal 175 ; Appellate case no. : 10-2057. Upon
consideration of the Appellant's Motion to stay appeal, filed on May 10, 2010,
by counsel for the appellant,IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.
Proceedings in this appeal shall be held in abeyance pending resolution by the
district court of the pending motion to intervene. Appellant is ORDERED to
file a status report with this court by July 9, 2010 or within 10 days of the
district courts resolution of the motion to intervene. (hp, ) (Entered:
05/14/2010)
05/17/2010
193
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
(Morgans, David) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
05/17/2010
194
NOTICE of Motion by David Edward Morgans for presentment of motion to
dismiss/lack of jurisdiction 193 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on
5/20/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Morgans, David) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
05/17/2010
195
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DAVID GROCHOCINSKI'S
MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
(Morgans, David) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
05/17/2010
196
NOTICE by David Grochocinski OF FILING (Morgans, David) (Entered:
05/17/2010)
05/18/2010
197
TRANSMITTED to the USCA for the 7th Circuit the long record on appeal
175 (USCA no. 10-2057). (gej, ) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
05/18/2010
198
USCA RECEIVED on 5/18/2010 the long record regarding notice of appeal
175 . (gej, ) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
05/20/2010
199
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Motion hearing held.
Plaintiff's motion to dismiss/lack of jurisdiction 193 is taken under
advisement. Responses are to be filed by 6/3/2010. Replies are to be filed by
6/10/2010. Court will by mail. Briefing on the motion for sanctions is stayed
pending disposition of plaintiff's motion to dismiss.Advised in open court
(jms, ) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
05/27/2010
200
RESPONSE by Defendants in Opposition to R. Gerard Spehar Motion to
intervene 173 (hp, ) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
06/03/2010
201
RESPONSE by Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLPin
Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction 193 (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
06/10/2010
202
REPLY Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss defendants'
motion for sanctions by David Grochocinski 193 (Morgans, David) Modified
on 6/11/2010 (vmj, ). (Entered: 06/10/2010)
06/10/2010
203
NOTICE of filing by David Grochocinski re 202 (Morgans, David) Modified
on 6/11/2010 (vmj, ). (Entered: 06/10/2010)
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 21 of 25
06/10/2010
204
SUPPLEMENT to Spehar motion to alter or amend by Gerry Spehar (Poor
Quality Original - Paper Document on File) (vmj, ) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
06/10/2010
205
REPLY by Movant Gerard Spehar in support of his motion to intervene 173
(Exhibits). (hp, ) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
06/14/2010
206
LETTER to Judge Kendall dated 6/14/2010 by Ronald B Given, Mayer
Brown Rowe & Maw LLP (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Appellate Docket &
Order Granting Stay)(Novack, Stephen) (Text Edited by Clerks Office on
6/15/2010) (hp, ). (Entered: 06/14/2010)
06/25/2010
208
LETTER to Judge Kendall dated 6/24/2010 from pro se movant R. Gerard
Spehar (Exhibits) re 173 , 193 . (hp, ) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
06/28/2010
207
Letter by Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP (Novack,
Stephen) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
07/26/2010
209
AFFIDAVIT of Ronald Holman to Supplement Previously filed Limited
Ratification (Exhibit). (hp, ) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
08/13/2010
210
LETTER from R. Gerard Spehar dated 8/13/2010. (vmj, ) (Entered:
08/17/2010)
08/18/2010
211
LETTER to Judge Kendall by Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw
LLP dated 8/18/2010 (Novack, Stephen) (Text Modified by Clerk's Office on
8/19/2010). (hp, ). (Entered: 08/18/2010)
08/20/2010
212
LETTER to Judge Kendall from Pro Se Movant R. Gerard Spehar dated
8/20/2010. (hp, ) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
02/03/2011
213
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Enter
MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above,
the Court denies Spehars Motion to Intervene and Dismisses his Motion to
Alter or Amend as moot. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
02/03/2011
214
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Virginia M.
Kendall on 2/3/2011.(tsa, ) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
02/14/2011
215
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on
2/14/2011: The Court denies Grochocinskis Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction. Grochocinski shall respond to the Defendants Motion for
Sanctions by February 28, 2011, and the Defendants shall reply by March 7,
2011. Entered by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 2/14/2011. Mailed
notice(tsa, ) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
02/16/2011
216
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for extension of time to file
response/reply (Morgans, David) (Entered: 02/16/2011)
02/16/2011
217
NOTICE of Motion by David Edward Morgans for presentment of motion for
extension of time to file response/reply 216 before Honorable Virginia M.
Kendall on 2/22/2011 at 09:00 AM. (Morgans, David) (Entered: 02/16/2011)
02/16/2011
218
NOTICE of appeal by Gerard Spehar regarding orders 214 , 213 . (Fee Due)
(gel, ) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 22 of 25
02/17/2011
219
NOTICE of Appeal Due letter sent to counsel of record. (gel, ) (Entered:
02/17/2011)
02/17/2011
220
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on notice of appeal 218 .
Notified counsel (gel, ) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
02/17/2011
221
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Respondent
Grochocinski's motion for extension of time to respond to defendants' motion
for sanctions 216 is granted. Response by 3/14/2011. Reply by 3/28/2011.
Ruling will be made by mail. The motion for sanctions 176 is taken under
advisement. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
02/17/2011
222
(Court only) RECEIPT regarding payment of appeal fee paid on 2/17/2011 in
the amount of $455.00, receipt number 4624055277 (hp, ) (Entered:
02/18/2011)
02/17/2011
223
ACKNOWLEDGMENT of receipt of short record on appeal regarding notice
of appeal 218 ; USCA Case No. 11-1393. (hp, ) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
02/17/2011
224
CIRCUIT Rule 3(b) Notice to plaintiff (hp, ) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
02/18/2011
02/23/2011
(Court only) FORWARDED to USCA for the Seventh Circuit copy of
receitpt regarding payment of appeal fee paid on 2/17/2011 in the amount of
$455.00, receipt number 4624055277 with copy of docket sheet. (hp, )
(Entered: 02/18/2011)
225
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 9/26/2007 before the Honorable
Virginia M. Kendall. Oral Argument. Court Reporter Contact
Information: APRIL METZLER, 312-408-5154,
April_Metzler@ilnd.uscourts.gov.
IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or
purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of
Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court
Reporter or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the
Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy
Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.
Redaction Request due 3/16/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for
3/28/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/24/2011. (Metzler,
April) (Entered: 02/23/2011)
02/23/2011
226
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 10/30/2007 before the
Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Status Conference. Court Reporter Contact
Information: APRIL METZLER, 312-408-5154,
April_Metzler@ilnd.uscourts.gov.
IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or
purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of
Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court
Reporter or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the
Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy
Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 23 of 25
Redaction Request due 3/16/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for
3/28/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/24/2011. (Metzler,
April) (Entered: 02/23/2011)
02/23/2011
227
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 12/13/2007 before the
Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Motion Hearing. Court Reporter Contact
Information: APRIL METZLER, 312-408-5154,
April_Metzler@ilnd.uscourts.gov.
IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or
purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of
Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court
Reporter or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the
Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy
Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.
Redaction Request due 3/16/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for
3/28/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/24/2011. (Metzler,
April) (Entered: 02/23/2011)
02/25/2011
228
DESIGNATION by Movant Gerard Spehar of record on appeal : USCA Case
No. 11-1393 (Exhibit). (hp, ) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
03/01/2011
229
DESIGNATION by Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP of
record on appeal : USCA Case No. 11-1393 (Novack, Stephen) (Entered:
03/01/2011)
03/09/2011
230
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for leave to file 35 Page Response
Brief to Defendants' Motion for Sanctions (Joyce, Edward) (Entered:
03/09/2011)
03/09/2011
231
NOTICE of Motion by Edward T. Joyce for presentment of motion for leave
to file 230 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 3/15/2011 at 09:00 AM.
(Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 03/09/2011)
03/10/2011
232
TRANSMITTED to the USCA for the 7th Circuit the long record on appeal
218 (USCA no. 11-1393). (gel, ) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
03/10/2011
233
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: MOTION by Plaintiff
David Grochocinski for leave to file 35 Page Response Brief to Defendants'
Motion for Sanctions 230 is granted.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered:
03/10/2011)
03/10/2011
234
USCA RECEIVED on 3/10/2011 the original record record regarding notice
of appeal 218 . (hp, ) (Entered: 03/14/2011)
03/14/2011
235
RESPONSE by David Grochocinskiin Opposition to MOTION by
Defendants Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP for sanctions
176 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-C, # 2 Exhibit D-H)(Joyce, Edward)
(Entered: 03/14/2011)
03/14/2011
236
RESPONSE by David Grochocinskiin Opposition to MOTION by
Defendants Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP for sanctions
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 24 of 25
176 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit 1)(Morgans, David) (Entered:
03/14/2011)
03/14/2011
237
NOTICE by David Grochocinski re response in opposition to motion 236
(Morgans, David) (Entered: 03/14/2011)
03/18/2011
238
MOTION by Defendants Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP
for extension of time to file response/reply in support of motion for sanctions
(Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 03/18/2011)
03/18/2011
239
NOTICE of Motion by Stephen Novack for presentment of motion for
extension of time to file response/reply 238 before Honorable Virginia M.
Kendall on 3/24/2011 at 09:00 AM. (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 03/18/2011)
03/22/2011
240
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Motion by Defendants
Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP for extension of time to
file reply in support of motion for sanctions 176 , 238 is granted. Reply due
by 4/18/2011. The motion will not be heard on 3/24/2011 as noticed.Mailed
notice (tlp, ) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
04/18/2011
241
REPLY by Defendants Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP to
memorandum in support of motion 177 , motion for sanctions 176 Against
Edward T. Joyce & Associates, P.C. (Novack, Stephen) (Entered:
04/18/2011)
04/18/2011
242
REPLY by Defendants Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP to
memorandum in support of motion 177 , motion for sanctions 176 Against
David Grochocinski, Bankruptcy Trustee for CMGT, Inc. (Novack, Stephen)
(Entered: 04/18/2011)
06/15/2011
243
CERTIFIED copy of order dated 06/15/2011 from the Seventh regarding
notice of appeal 175 , notice of appeal 218 ; Appellate case no. : 10-2057 &
11-1393. Upon consideration of the MOTION TO INCLUDE SPEHAR OR
TERMINATE SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS, filed on June 13, 2011, by
pro se party R. Gerard Spehar, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
(hp, ) (Entered: 06/16/2011)
06/30/2011
244
MOTION by Defendants Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP,
Plaintiff David Grochocinski to stay sanctions motion as it relates to
Grochocinski only (Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
06/30/2011
245
NOTICE of Motion by Steven J. Ciszewski for presentment of motion to stay
244 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 7/11/2011 at 09:00 AM.
(Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
06/30/2011
246
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Enter
MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above,
and pursuant to both § 1927 and its inherent power to enter sanctions, the
Court denies the Mayer Browns motion for sanctions as to Grochocinski, and
grants in part Mayer Browns motion as to Joyce. By July 8, 2011, Mayer
Brown must file its fee petition detailing: (1) one-half the attorneys fees and
costs it incurred in preparing for and taking Grochocinskis deposition; (2)
one-half of the Grochocinski deposition costs; and (3) one-half the attorneys
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois
Page 25 of 25
fees and costs it incurred to bring the sanctions motion. Any response to the
bill of costs is due July 22, 2011. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
06/30/2011
247
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Virginia M.
Kendall on 6/30/2011.(tsa, ) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
07/07/2011
248
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Per telephonic request,
MOTION by Defendants Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP,
Plaintiff David Grochocinski to stay sanctions motion as it relates to
Grochocinski only 244 is withdrawn. Motion hearing set for 7/11/2011 is
stricken.Telephone notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/07/2011)
07/08/2011
249
PETITION by Defendants for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A)(Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
07/22/2011
250
RESPONSE by Plaintiff David Grochocinski Joyce's Response to Defendants'
Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs 249 (Joyce, Edward) (Entered:
07/22/2011)
10/03/2011
251
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to supplement record on appeal
pursuant to F.R.A.P. 10(e) and Circuit Court Rule 10(b) (Joyce, Edward)
(Entered: 10/03/2011)
10/03/2011
252
NOTICE of Motion by Edward T. Joyce for presentment of motion to
supplement 251 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 10/11/2011 at
09:00 AM. (Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
10/05/2011
253
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: MOTION by Plaintiff
David Grochocinski to supplement record on appeal pursuant to F.R.A.P. 10
(e) and Circuit Court Rule 10(b) 251 is granted. Motion hearing set for
10/11/2011 on this motion is stricken. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered:
10/05/2011)
10/06/2011
254
TRANSMITTED to the USCA for the 7th Circuit supplemental record on
appeal 218 (USCA no. 11-1393) consisting of One Electronic volume of of
proceedings. (hp, ) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
10/17/2011
255
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on
10/17/2011: For these reasons, the Court orders Joyce to pay Mayer Brown
$10,712.34 in attorneys' fees and $1,438.58 in costs connection with the
Grochocinski deposition, as well as $24,984.90 in attorneys' fees to brief the
motion for sanctions, for a total of $37,135.82. [ For further details see
written opinion.] Mailed notice (hp, ) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
11/15/2011
256
NOTICE of appeal by Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP
regarding orders 247 , 246 , 255 Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 07526570521. (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
11/17/2011
257
NOTICE of Appeal Due letter sent to counsel of record. (gel, ) (Entered:
11/17/2011)
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?877262597643098-L_452_0-1
11/17/2011
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?