Straw v. Kloecker et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM Order: Plaintiff Shaw's motion to strike 28 is denied. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 9/8/2016:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ANDREW U. D. STRAW,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN F. KLOECKER, and
LOCKE LORD LLP,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14 C 1420

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Some 2-1/2 years ago this Court issued its March 5, 2014 memorandum opinion and
order ("Opinion") that dismissed a pro se action that Andrew Straw ("Straw") 1 had brought
against attorney John Kloecker ("Kloecker") and his law firm, Locke Lord LLP ("Locke Lord"),
under the claimed auspices of civil RICO. Following this Court's detailed exposition and
analysis of the many deficiencies in Straw's Complaint, the final paragraph of the Opinion
summarized that analysis by stating:
In sum, Straw's effort to bootstrap the Letter into a criminal violation through
which he hopes to mulct $15 million from Kloecker and Locke Lord must be
characterized as legally frivolous in the sense employed in Lee v. Clinton, 209
F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000).
Nothing daunted, Straw then filed a motion for reconsideration of the Opinion that prompted the
swift issuance of a March 26, 2014 memorandum order that reconfirmed the conclusion
announced in the Opinion and denied reconsideration.

_________________________
1
As the Opinion stated at the outset, Straw was then "a lawyer though not now engaged
in the practice as a result of disabilities that have limited his principal income to Social Security
Disability Income benefits."

Now Straw has resurfaced with a self-prepared Motion To Strike that seeks to have the
word "frivolous" stricken from the Opinion. And he does so despite the fact that our Court of
Appeals, to which he turned for relief after losing at the District Court level, issued an
unpublished August 19, 2014 order that, after having set out its analysis of Straw's claim against
Kloecker and Locke Lord, concluded:
We agree with the district court that Straw's lawsuit under RICO is frivolous, as is
this appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment and order Straw to SHOW
CAUSE within 30 days why he should not be sanctioned under Fed. R. App. P. 38
for taking this appeal. We also DENY Straw's motion to disqualify Miller,
Shakman & Beem LLP as attorneys for the appellees in this case.
Some added idea of the manner in which Straw's mind seems to work is provided by this
paragraph in his current motion that treats glancingly with the Court of Appeals' express
agreement as to the frivolous nature of his federal lawsuit:
The Seventh Circuit called my case frivolous, but chose not to sanction me
because Locke Lord LLP and John Kloecker hired and used the former law firm
of Judge Shadur for its appeal work on this case: Miller, Shakman & Beem.
This Court does not, of course, know whether Straw's cause-and-effect assertion in that
paragraph is accurate, though it would seem unlikely given the nature of the Court of Appeals'
language quoted in the preceding paragraph. But in all events it should be made plain (1) that
more than three decades have elapsed since this Court left the practice of law with its former law
firm to become a federal judge, (2) that Kloecker and Locke Lord were not represented by that
firm when Straw's case was before this Court and (3) that this Court had not the slightest inkling
that Kloecker and Locke Lord would choose to retain that firm, a substantial part of whose
practice involves representing other lawyers and law firms in litigation matters, to handle their
appellees' case on appeal.

-2-

In short, Straw's current motion is entirely unjustified. If his litigation tactics are now, as
he asserts, under consideration by the Indiana Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary
Commission, that must be viewed as a self-inflicted wound. Straw's Motion To Strike is denied.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: September 8, 2016

-3-