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)

Download PDF
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?