Basketball Deity Can Add Additional Plaintiff in Publicity Suit Versus Jewel Food Stores – IL ND (the ‘Kriss Kross Will Make You…Jump’ Post(??)

There’s No Way(!) I’m going to simply pull-and-post just any Google Image of His Airness and hope no one sees it (or, more accurately, takes it seriously enough to engage in some copyright saber-rattling about it).  Not after Michael Jordan is fresh off his nearly $9M Federal jury verdict in a publicity suit against erstwhile Chicago grocer Dominick’s and its parent company.  I didn’t even know he filed a companion suit – this one against Jewel Food Stores – another iconic Midwest grocery brand – pressing similar publicity claims against the chain for using his image without his permission.  Now I do.

In fact, just a couple days before that Friday night Federal jury verdict in the Dominick’s suit, Jordan successfully moved to add his loan-out company1, Jump 23, Inc. as a party plaintiff in his Jewel suit.  The Jewel case, like its Dominick’s case counterpart, stems from Jewel’s use of Jordan’s likeness in an ad congratulating him on his 2009 hoops Hall of Fame induction.

In granting Jordan’s motion to add the Jump 23 entity, the court in Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 2015 WL 4978700 (N.D.Ill. 2015), quite naturally, drilled down to the bedrock principles governing amendments to pleadings in Federal court as expressed in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In the Federal scheme, Rule 15 controls pleading amendments and freely allows amendments to pleadings “when justice so requires.”  Rule 15(c)(1)(C) governs where an amended claim is time-barred (filed after the statute of limitations expires) and seeks to add a new claim or a new party.  If the party or claim to be added stems from the same transaction as the earlier pleading, the amended pleading will “relate back” to the date of the timely filed claim.

Assuming an amended claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence as the earlier (and timely) claim, the (normally) time-barred claim will be deemed timely as long as the party to be brought in by the amendment (1) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending the suit on the merits; and (2) knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.

While Rule 15 only speaks to bringing in additional defendants, it’s rationale extends to situations where a party seeks to add a new plaintiff.  Delay alone in adding a party (either plaintiff or defendant) usually isn’t enough to deny a motion to amend to add a new party. Instead, the party opposing amendment (here, Jewel) must show prejudice resulting from the joined party.  Prejudice here means something akin to lost evidence, missing witnesses or a compromised defense caused by the delay.

In this case, the court found there was no question that the Jump 23 entity was aligned with Jordan’s interests and its publicity claim was based on the same conduct underlying Jordan’s.  It also found there was no prejudice to Jewel in allowing Jump 23 to be added as co-plaintiff.  The court noted that Jump 23’s addition to the suit didn’t change the facts and issues in the case and didn’t raise the specter of increased liability for Jewel.  In addition, the court stressed that Jewel is entitled to use the written discovery obtained in the Dominick’s case.  As a result, Jewel won’t be exposed to burdensome additional discovery by allowing the addition of Jump 23 as plaintiff.

Take-away:

This case provides a good summary of Rule 15 amendment elements in the less typical setting of a party seeking to add a plaintiff as a party to a lawsuit.  The lesson for defendants is clear: delay alone isn’t severe enough to deny a plaintiff’s attempt to add a party.  The defendant (or person opposing amendment) must show tangible prejudice in the form of lost evidence, missing witnesses or that its ability to defend the action is weakened by the additional parties’ presence in the suit.

Jordan versus Jewel is slated for trial in December 2015.  I’m interested to see how the multi-million dollar Dominick’s verdict will impact pre-trial settlement talks in the Jewel case.  I would think Jordan has some serious bargaining leverage to exact a hefty settlement from Jewel.  More will be revealed.

  1. Loan-out company definition (see http://www.abspayroll.net/payroll101-loan-out-companies.html)

 

Piercing the Corporate Veil Not a Standalone Cause of Action: It’s A Remedy – IL Court Rules

Gajda v. Steel Solutions Firm, Inc., 2015 IL App (1st) 142219, stands as a recent discussion of the standards governing section 2-619 motions, successor liability and whether piercing the corporate veil is a cause of action or only a remedy for a different underlying legal claim.

The plaintiffs alleged they were misclassified as independent contractors instead of employees under the Illinois Employee Classification Act (820 ILCS 185/60) by their employer and one of its principals.  The plaintiffs sued under piercing the corporate veil and successor liability theories.  The trial court dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims and they appealed.

Reversing the trial court and sustaining the bulk of plaintiffs’ claims, the First District stressed some important recurring procedural and substantive rules in corporate litigation.

Piercing the corporate veil – Standalone cause of action or remedy?

Answer: remedy.  In Illinois, piercing the corporate veil is not a cause of action but is instead a “means of imposing liability in an underlying cause of action.”  In the usual piercing setting, once a party obtains a judgment against a corporation, the party can then “pierce” the corporate veil of liability protection and hold the dominant shareholder(s) responsible for the corporate obligation.  Piercing can also be used to reach the assets of an affiliated or “sister” corporation.

Here, since the plaintiff captioned their first count as one for piercing the corporate veil, the trial court properly dismissed the claim on defendant’s Section 2-615 motion since piercing isn’t a recognized cause of action in Illinois.  (¶¶ 19-24).  However, the court did find that the plaintiff’s factual allegations that the defunct predecessor and its successor were alter-egos of each other, that they commingled one another’s funds and made improper loans to each other were sufficient to state a claim for piercing the corporation veil as a remedy (not a separate cause of action).  (¶ 25).

Successor Liability

The court then applied Illinois’ established successor liability rules to both the defunct and current employers.  A company that purchases another company’s assets normally isn’t responsible for the purchased company’s debt.  Exceptions to this rule against corporate successor non-liability include (1) where there is an express or implied agreement or assumption of liability; (2) where a transaction amounts to a consolidation or merger of the buyer and seller companies; (3) where the buying entity is a “mere continuation” of the selling predecessor entity; and (4) where the transaction is fraudulent in that it is done so that the selling entity can evade liability for its financial obligations. (¶ 26).

Here, the plaintiff’s allegations that showed an overlap in the buying and selling entities’ management and employees as well as the complaint’s assertions that the predecessor and successor companies were commingling funds were sufficient to make out a case of mere continuation successor liability. (¶ 26).

Afterwords:

This case cements proposition that piercing isn’t a standalone cause of action – but is instead a remedy where there is an underlying failure to follow corporate formalities.  The case is also useful for its providing some clues as to what facts a plaintiff must allege to state a colorable successor liability claim under Illinois law.

Economic Loss Rule Requires Reversal of $2.7M Damage Verdict In Furniture Maker’s Lawsuit- 7th Circuit

In a case that invokes Hadley v. Baxendale** – the storied British Court of Exchequer case published just three years after Moby-Dick (“Call me ‘Wikipedia’ guy?”) and is a stalwart of all first year Contracts courses across the land – the Seventh Circuit reversed a multi-million dollar judgment for a furniture maker.

The plaintiff in JMB Manufacturing, Inc. v. Child Craft, LLC, sued the defendant furniture manufacturer for failing to pay for about $90,000 worth of wood products it ordered.  The furniture maker in turn countersued for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation versus the wood supplier and its President alleging that the defective wood products caused the furniture maker to go out of business – resulting in millions of dollars in damages.

The trial court entered a $2.7M money judgment for the furniture maker on its counterclaims after a bench trial.

The Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment for the counter-plaintiff based on Indiana’s economic loss rule.  

Indiana follows the economic loss doctrine which posits that “there is no liability in tort for pure economic loss caused unintentionally.”  Pure economic loss means monetary loss that is not accompanied with any property damage (to other property) or personal injury.  The rule is based on the principal that contract law is better suited than tort law to handle economic loss lawsuits.  The economic loss rule prevents a commercial party from recovering losses under a tort theory where the party could have protected itself from those losses by negotiating a contractual warranty or indemnification term.

Recognized exceptions to the economic loss rule in Indiana include claims for negligent misrepresentation, where there is no privity of contract between a plaintiff and defendant and where there is a special or fiduciary relationship between a plaintiff and defendant. 

The court focused on the negligent misrepresentation exception – which is bottomed on the principle that a plaintiff should be protected where it reasonably relies on advice provided by a defendant who is in the business of supplying information. (p. 17).

The furniture maker counter-plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation claim versus the corporate president defendant failed based on the agent of a disclosed principal rule.  Since all statements concerning the moisture content of the wood imputed to the counter-defendant’s president were made in his capacity as an agent of the corporate plaintiff/counter-defendant, the negligent misrepresentation claim failed.

The court also declined to find that there was a special relationship between the parties that took this case outside the scope of the economic loss rule.  Under Indiana law, a garden-variety contractual relationship cannot be bootstrapped into a special relationship just because one side to the agreement has more formal training than the other in the contract’s subject matter.

Lastly, the court declined to find that the corporate officer defendant was in the business of providing information.  Any information supplied to the counter-plaintiff was ancillary to the main purpose of the contract – the supply of wood products.

In the end, the court found that the counter-plaintiff negotiated for protection against defective wood products by inserting a contract term entitling it to $30/hour in labor costs for re-working deficient products.  The court found that the counter-plaintiff’s damages should have been capped at the amount representing man hours expended in reconfiguring the damaged wood times $30/hour – an amount that totaled $11,000. (pp. 9-17, 24).

Take-aways:

1/ This case provides a good statement of the economic loss rule as well as its philosophical underpinnings.  It’s clear that where two commercially sophisticated parties are involved, the court will require them to bargain for advantageous contract terms that protect them from defective goods or other contingencies;

2/ Where a corporate officer acts unintentionally (i.e. is negligent only), his actions will not bind his corporate employer under the agent of a disclosed principal rule;

3/ A basic contractual relationship between two merchants won’t qualify as a “special relationship” that will take the contract outside the limits of Indiana’s economic loss rule.

 ————————

** Hadley v. Baxendale is the seminal breach of contract case that involves consequential damages.  The case stands for the proposition that the non-breaching party’s recoverable damages must be foreseeable (ex: if X fails to deliver widgets to Y and Y loses a $1M account as a result, X normally wouldn’t be responsible for the $1M loss (unless Y made it clear to X that if X breached, Y would lose the account, e.g.) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_v_Baxendale]