Tag: FRCP 8

Indy Skyline Photo Spat At Heart Of 7th Circuit’s Gloss on Affirmative Defenses, Res Judicata and Fed. Pleading Amendments – Bell v. Taylor (Part I)

Litigation over pictures of the Indianapolis skyline form the backdrop for the Seventh Circuit’s recent examination of the elements of a proper affirmative defense under Federal pleading rules and the concept of ‘finality’ for res judicata purposes in Bell v. Taylor.

There, several small businesses infringed plaintiff’s copyrights in two photographs of downtown Indianapolis: one taken at night, the other in daytime.  The defendants – an insurance company, a realtor, and a computer repair firm – all used at least one the plaintiff’s photos on company websites.  When the plaintiff couldn’t prove damages, the District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants and later dismissed a second lawsuit filed by the plaintiff against one of the defendants based on the same facts.  The plaintiff appealed.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment of the first lawsuit and dismissal of the second action on both procedural and substantive grounds.

Turning to the claims against the computer company defendant, the court noted that the defendant denied using the plaintiff’s daytime photo.  The defendant used only the nighttime photo.  The plaintiff argued that the defendant failed to comply with Rule 8(b) by not asserting facts to support its denial that it used plaintiff’s daytime photo.

Rejecting this argument, the court noted that a proper affirmative defense limits or excuses a defendant’s liability even where the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case.  If the facts that underlie an affirmative defense are proven true, they will defeat the plaintiff’s claim even if all of the complaint allegations are true.  A defendant’s contesting a plaintiff’s factual allegation is not an affirmative defense.  It is instead a simple denial.  Since the computer defendant denied it used the daytime photo, there was no affirmative matter involved and the defendant didn’t have to comply with Rule 8’s pleading requirements.

The Seventh Circuit also affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s attempt to amend his complaint several months after pleadings closed.  In Federal court, the right to amend pleadings is broad but not absolute.  Where allowing an amendment would result in undue delay or prejudice to the opposing party, a court has discretion to refuse a request to amend a complaint.  FRCP 15(a)(2).  Here, the Court agreed with the lower court that the plaintiff showed a lack of diligence by waiting until well after the amending pleadings deadline passed.  The plaintiff’s failure to timely seek leave to amend its complaint supported the court’s denial of its motion.

The Court also affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s second lawsuit on res judicata grounds.  When the District Court entered summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff’s copyright and state law claims (conversion, unfair competition), plaintiff’s equitable relief claims (declaratory judgment and injunctive relief) were pending.  Because of this, the summary judgment order wasn’t final for purposes of appeal.  (Plaintiff could only appeal final orders – and until the court disposed of the equitable claims, the summary judgment order wasn’t final and appealable.)

Still, finality for res judicata purposes is different from appellate finality.  An order can be final and have preclusive effect under res judicata or collateral estoppel even where other claims remain.  This was the case here as plaintiff’s sole claim against the computer company defendant was for copyright infringement.  The pending equitable claims were directed to other defendants.  So the District Court’s summary judgment order on plaintiff’s copyright infringement claims was final as to the computer defendant.  This finality triggered res judicata and barred the plaintiff’s second lawsuit on the same facts.

Afterwords:

The case’s academic value lies in its thorough summary of the pleading requirements for affirmative defenses and the factors guiding a court when determining whether to permit amendments to pleadings.  The case also stresses that finality for appeal purposes is not the same as for res judicata or collateral estoppel.  If an order disposes of a plaintiff’s claims against one but not all defendants, the order is still final as to that defendant and the plaintiff will be precluded from later filing a second lawsuit against that earlier victorious defendant.

Corporate Officer Can’t Tortiously Interfere with His Company’s Contract; No Punitives for Breach of Contract – ND IL

In Richmond v. Advanced Pain Consultants, P.C., 2015 WL 4971040 (N.D.Ill. 2015), the plaintiff sued the defendants – two companies that operated suburban (Chicago) pain clinics and their doctor principal – claiming several thousand dollars in unpaid computer and accounting services plaintiff performed at the clinics over a several-month period.  The plaintiff brought claims for overtime under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and joined companion state law claims for breach of contract, quantum meruit and tortious interference with contract.  The defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims arguing preemption and the failure to state a claim, among other things.

In dismissing some of plaintiff’s claims (and sustaining others), the Northern District stressed some vital pleading rules and substantive law principles that apply in Federal court litigation.

Federal Notice Pleading Requirements

Federal Rule 8(a)(2) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing a pleader is entitled to relief.”  The plaintiff must provide enough factual context to rise above a speculative level so that a defendant has “fair notice” of what the plaintiff’s claim is.  However, “threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action” are not enough to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal motion.

Preemption and Punitive Damages

The defendant first argued the plaintiff’s common law claims (breach of contract, quantum merit, tortious interference) were preempted by the FLSA.  FLSA preempts common law claims that seek to recover overtime or minimum wage compensation.  But if the plaintiff’s claim seeks something other than overtime or minimum wage payments, those claims aren’t preempted.  Here, several of the plaintiff’s claims were for “regular wages” (not overtime) and so were not preempted by FLSA.

The court next struck plaintiff’s punitive damages claim from his breach of contract suit.  Under Illinois law, contract law’s sole purpose is to compensate the nonbreaching party.  It does not seek to punish the breaching party or give an economic windfall to the plaintiff.  This is true even if the breach is intentional.  Punitive damages can only be allowed in the breach of contract setting where the breach is itself an actionable, independent tort (e.g. a civil conspiracy, fraud, etc.).  Since there was no independent tortious conduct over and above the breach of contract – failure to pay plaintiff for his office services – the court struck plaintiff’s punitive damages claims.

Tortious Interference Against A Single-Member Corporation

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s tortious interference claims against the individual defendant – the sole shareholder of the two corporate defendants.

To state a claim for tortious interference with contract, a plaintiff must allege: (i) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract between a plaintiff and another; (ii) defendant’s awareness of the contractual obligation; (iii) defendant’s intentional and unjustified inducement of a breach of contract; (iv) breach of the contract by the third party caused by the defendant’s wrongful conduct.

A colorable tortious interference claim requires the involvement of at least three entities: (1)-(2) the parties to the contract and (3) the person inducing the breach.

Here, the individual defendant was the sole officer and manager of the two defendant medical offices who had unchallenged authority to make all hiring and firing decisions for the two entities.  The court noted that the two corporate defendants wouldn’t exist without the individual defendant.  There were no other shareholders or parties who had an interest in the corporate defendants.  Since the individual defendant was the only operator and stakeholder in the corporate defendants, he could not tortuously induce a breach of (effectively) his own contract with the plaintiff.

Afterwords:

The case provides some useful damages law reminders including that in a breach of contract suit, punitive damages normally can’t be recovered.  The plaintiff must show that the defendant’s breach is itself an intentional tort for a punitive claim possibly to lie.

Advanced Pain Consultants also makes clear that an officer of a corporation cannot tortiously interfere with a contract involving that corporation where that officer is the only shareholder of the corporation and has sole responsibility for the corporation’s business.

 

No Fiduciary Duty Owed Lender By Closing Agent in Botched Real Estate Deal

In Edelman v. Belco Title & Escrow, LLC (http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/13-2363/13-2363-2014-04-25.html) the plaintiffs sued an escrow agent after investing $3M in a failed real estate deal.

The plaintiffs invested the monies directly with the developers of a mixed-use project.  The plaintiff never met with nor spoke to the defendant escrow agent and there was no document that formalized the relationship between plaintiffs and defendant other than some boilerplate closing forms.

Plaintiffs sued when they lost their entire investment after a prior mortgage lender foreclosed on the subject development, wiping out plaintiffs’ entire investment.

Affirming summary judgment for the escrow agent, the court first addressed a procedural pleading issue.  FRCP 8(b)(6) provides that a complaint allegation is admitted if that allegation isn’t denied.  The purpose of a responsive pleading is to put everyone on notice of what a defendant admits and what it intends to contest.

Here, since defendant answered plaintiff’s earlier versions of the complaint which contained identical allegations to the current version, plaintiffs were on notice of what allegations were admitted and which ones were not.

On the merits, the Court found that the defendant escrow agent didn’t owe a fiduciary duty beyond its specific instructions from the plaintiffs.

In Illinois, a principal and agent stand in a fiduciary relationship as a matter of law.  The agent occupies a position of trust towards the principal and he (the agent) must act in the utmost good faith and apprise his principal of all key facts within the agent’s knowledge that could affect the principal’s legal relationships.

Illinois law is clear that an escrowee, like a trustee, owes a fiduciary duty to act only according to the specific escrow instructions.  No Illinois court has held that an escrowee in defendant’s position is tasked with an obligation to seek additional instructions from parties to a real estate deal.

Here, the plaintiffs and defendant never met nor communicated.  The defendant wasn’t party to the underlying loan agreement that documented plaintiffs’ $3M investment.  The loan agreement parties were the plaintiffs and the developers (who weren’t named as defendants).

Also, the disbursement agreement wasn’t signed and offered no details of the plaintiff-defendant relationship.  The Court also pointed out that the plaintiffs never deposited any funds with the defendant: plaintiffs paid the $3M directly to the developers.

The Seventh Circuit bolstered its no fiduciary duty finding with a policy argument.  It held that escrow transactions would be “destabilized” if an escrow agent like defendant could be legally liable in circumstances like here, where it didn’t know what responsibilities it owed and to whom.

Take-aways:

– an escrowee or closing agent only owe duties spelled out in instructions given him by his lender-principal;

– it will be difficult for a real estate lender to prove a fiduciary duty claim where there is no physical or paper connection between the lender and escrow agent and where the lender doesn’t fund a loan through the escrow agent.