ACF 2006 CORP v. CONOUR et al
Filing
185
ENTRY FOLLOWING MANDATE FROM THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS - For the reasons set forth in the Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit entered on August 1, 2016: The Court enters Final Judgment against Plaintiff , ACF 2006 Corp. and directs that ACF 2006 Corp. take nothing by its claims asserted in this action. The Court enters Final Judgment in favor of Intervenors, David L. Beals, Sr., Loretta Beals, and Kristen Beals, by her Guardians David L. Beals, S r. and Loretta Beals, in the amount of $358,069.83. The Court orders appellate costs to be assessed against ACF 2006 Corp. in the amount of $500.00 payable to the Beals Intervenors, and an additional $500.00 payable to Ladendorf / Deve reux for costs assessed by the Court of Appeals. Judgment is entered against ACF 2006 Corp. in those amounts. The quantum meruit claim associated with the N.E. case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as unripe. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/19/2016.(JLS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ACF 2006 CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM F. CONOUR, CONOUR LAW
FIRM, LLC, MARK C. LADENDORF
ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C., and TIMOTHY F.
DEVEREUX,
Defendants.
v.
DAVID L. BEALS, SR., LORETTA BEALS,
KRISTEN BEALS by her Guardians DAVID L.
BEALS, SR. and LORETTA BEALS,
Intervenors.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:13-cv-01286-TWP-DML
ENTRY FOLLOWING MANDATE FROM THE
SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Mandate from the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals. The Mandate instructs as follows: The judgment of the District Court is REVERSED,
with costs, and the case is REMANDED for the entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.
(Filing No. 180.) In accordance with the district court’s Local Rule 16-2, the parties each filed
position statements.
In their respective statements, the parties invited the Court to take various actions regarding
the order following the Mandate. The Court declines the parties’ contrasting invitations to
determine co-counsel fees for the Ken Nunn Law Office, the Keller & Keller Law Firm, and the
Ladendorf firm, and to determine whether or not the Beals Intervenors have a lien under Indiana
Code § 30-4-3-22(b). Instead, the Court follows the simple mandate from the Seventh Circuit
which requires only the entry of judgment and does not instruct the reopening of proceedings or
reconsideration of prior rulings. For the reasons set forth in the Mandate of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit entered on August 1, 2016:
1.
The Court enters Final Judgment against Plaintiff, ACF 2006 Corp. and directs that
ACF 2006 Corp. take nothing by its claims asserted in this action.
2.
The Court enters Final Judgment in favor of Intervenors, David L. Beals, Sr.,
Loretta Beals, and Kristen Beals, by her Guardians David L. Beals, Sr. and Loretta Beals, in the
amount of $358,069.83.
3.
The Court orders appellate costs to be assessed against ACF 2006 Corp. in the
amount of $500.00 payable to the Beals Intervenors, and an additional $500.00 payable to
Ladendorf / Devereux for costs assessed by the Court of Appeals. Judgment is entered against
ACF 2006 Corp. in those amounts.
4.
The quantum meruit claim associated with the N.E. case is dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction as unripe.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 9/19/2016
DISTRIBUTION:
Austin L. McMullen
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP
amcmullen@babc.com
Roger G. Jones
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP
rjones@babc.com
2
Christopher Charles Hagenow
HOPPER & BLACKWELL
chagenow@hopperblackwell.com
Mark C. Ladendorf
LADENDORF & LADENDORF
mark@ladendorf.com
Timothy Francis Devereux
LADENDORF & LADENDORF
tim@ladendorf.com
James R. Fisher
MILLER & FISHER, LLC
fisher@millerfisher.com
Debra H. Miller
MILLER & FISHER, LLC
miller@millerfisher.com
3
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?