Konrath v. Ruiz

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 10/11/2016:Mailed notice(jms, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
GREGORY KONRATH,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL "MIGUEL" RUIZ,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16 C 9539

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Gregory Konrath ("Konrath") has filed a pro se action against Chicago lawyer Miguel
Ruiz ("Ruiz"), charging him with legal malpractice "for events that happened in Illinois and
Indiana from 2007 to 2011." From the Complaint's explanation that Ruiz was retained by
Konrath and his wife Ana "to give them legal advice and represent them pro bono for a dispute
that they had with their homeowners' association at 2717 North Lehmann Ct., Chicago, IL
60014, from 2007 to 2011," 1 and from the more detailed description that follows, it is clear that
the services Ruiz rendered -- or as Konrath would have it, did not render -- were Illinois-based.
Although Konrath's first paragraph refers to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") as well as
to diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there is clearly no predicate for
invoking Section 1983 -- instead diversity jurisdiction is clearly present because (1) the Konrath
couple is identified as sharing Indiana citizenship, while Ruiz is an Illinois citizen, and
(2) Konrath's statement that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 may reasonably be
_________________________
1
According to the Complaint:
The plaintiff and his wife lived in Indiana, and used their townhouse on the
weekends. They would let family and friends use the townhouse when they were
not there.

viewed as plausible. But Konrath is obviously unaware of the now-two-decade-old amendment
to the limitations period applicable to lawyer malpractice actions, embodied in 735 ILCS
5/13-214.3(b):
An action for damages based on tort, contract, or otherwise (i) against an attorney
arising out of an act or omission in the performance of professional services or
(ii) against a non-attorney employee arising out of an act or omission in the course
of his or her employment by an attorney to assist the attorney in performing
professional services must be commenced within 2 years from the time the person
bringing the action knew or reasonably should have known of the injury for which
damages are sought.
In short, Konrath's preparation for filing his Complaint, which preparation manifested
itself by his references to the Twombly doctrine and to our Court of Appeals decision in
Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2010), failed to carry his legal research to the
point of checking on the timeliness (more accurately, the untimeliness) of this action.
Accordingly both the Complaint and this action are dismissed. 2 Hence Konrath's Prisoner
Petition To Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Dkt. No. 3] is denied as moot.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: October 11, 2016
_________________________
2
This Court of course recognizes that limitations are an affirmative defense, so that in
most circumstances it would await the filing of a motion to dismiss on limitations grounds. But
in this instance, both because Ruiz is a lawyer and because the Complaint alleges that Ruiz has
"developed a romantic interest with the plaintiff's wife" and that "[t]hey are together now," there
clearly appears to be no prospect that Ruiz would permit this time-barred action to proceed
without filing a successful motion for its dismissal.

-2-