Following months of intense scrutiny and public outcry over his reluctance to answer questions about his suspicious campaign reporting, Illinois Auditor General Frank Mautino invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent to avoid incriminating himself amid an ongoing federal investigation.

On June 1, Mautino’s attorney, Tony Jacob, asked the State Board of Elections to give Mautino more time to respond to the board’s questions about his campaign spending while the federal investigation continues.

Last month, the board gave Mautino up to July 1 to amend his campaign reports.

The Edgar County Watchdogs, a self-appointed government watchdog group that has called out mayors, board chairmen and state's attorneys since 2010, says Mautino’s request should not only be denied, but the Auditor General should step down altogether.

“He should resign immediately as the people of this state will never trust him as our Auditor General knowing he chose to stay silent to avoid self-incrimination on civil matters that could potentially lead to criminal charges,” the watchdog group wrote on its website. “It was revealed several weeks ago that he is cooperating with the U.S. Attorney’s criminal investigation. If he does not plead the Fifth with the U.S. Attorney that may imply he is providing information that may point to other political figures wrongdoing.”

A cloud of suspicion has loomed over the former state Representative since January, when Mautino’s disclosure reports showed extravagant spending — over $200,000 — on gas and vehicle repairs over the span of 11 years to Happy’s Super Service in Spring Valley, which is Mautino’s hometown.

Edgar County Watchdogs quantified the amount to be $213,338.31. Also raising eyebrows were over $200,000 in irregular payments to Spring Valley City Bank, prompting the State Board of Elections to launch an investigation into the matter.

According to WebTimes, the board’s general counsel is recommending that the board grant Mautino’s request, which does not sit well with the watchdog group.

“May I suggest Gov. Rauner take any and all possible steps to replace any State Board of Elections Board members that votes to postpone the case and also push for a replacement legal counsel for that board,” the group wrote. “The reason is simple. If the U.S. Attorney wanted those hearings delayed they would have informed them of such. In addition, for the legal counsel to claim there is no urgency is a slap in the face to every citizen in this state.”

The Auditor General is tasked with auditing the use of the state’s public funds and reports findings and recommendations to the General Assembly and  governor.

The state conducted a nationwide search to replace former Auditor General William Holland, who retired last December after 23 years of service. During his tenure, Holland earned a reputation for serving the state in a nonpartisan and precise manner.

Mautino had served as State Representative for 24 years, including 15 years as a co-chairman of the Legislative Audit Commission, when a legislative panel recommended him to oversee how tax dollars are spent as Auditor General. The Legislative Audit Committee voted 11-1in favor of Mautino, the former co-chair of the panel.

Legislators in both parties supported Mautino — the Senate approved his nomination by a 55-0 vote, and the House, 102-10. He began serving as auditor general on Jan.1.

Mautino was chosen over three other finalists: Mary Modelski, a division chief for Internal Audit for Alameda County, California; Elaine Nekritz, D-Northbrook, a chief negotiator on pension issues; and Larry Sanders, general counsel for the Rend Lake Conservancy District.

Given the fragile condition of the state, and the fact that citizens of Illinois are struggling to trust elected and appointed officials, the board’s investigation into Mautino “should be dealt with the utmost urgency,” the watchdog group asserted. “Short of the U.S. Attorney sending a request to delay, the State Board of Elections should hold Frank Mautino’s feet to the fire, on schedule, just like any other person in this state!”

The board will make a decision on Mautino’s request in its meeting next Monday.

EAST ST. LOUIS — An insurance firm is suing Christone Enterprises Inc., an Illinois corporation leasing and managing property in Belleville, and the West Virginia-based owners of the property, Ray H. Lewis and Alihah M. Lewis, seeking a declaration that a policy does not cover a claim asserted by the Lewises in St. Clair County Circuit Court.

Owners Insurance Company filed a complaint on June 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against the defendants, alleging that Owners Insurance Company suffered damages as a result of claims the Lewises made against a policy held by Christone. The plaintiff claims the policy does not provide coverage for those damages.

The plaintiff seeks judgment against the defendant with a declaration that the policy does not cover the damages claimed to the property and any further relief as this court sees fit. It is represented by Daniel R. Price of Wham & Wham Lawyers in Centralia.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:16-cv-00621-SMY-SCW

EAST ST. LOUIS — An Illinois corporation is suing Sunago Systems LLC, Parcelshield LLC and Scott Knight, two Oregon companies and their owner, citing alleged breach of contract and failure to deliver a purchased product.

Dawson Group Inc. filed a complaint on June 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against the defendants, alleging that they claim they own software the plaintiff paid them to develop.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Dawson Group Inc. suffered damages to its business resulting in the loss of customers and revenue as well as monetary damages for paying to develop a software that could help its business but to which its access was shut off. The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible because they allegedly entered into an oral contract agreement with the plaintiff to develop a cloud-based system, but upon completion of the software, the defendant said the plaintiff needed to pay a non-exclusive license fee plus a royalty fee. The plaintiff refused, the suit says, and so the defendant completely shut off the plaintiff's access to the software, which is now being offered on the defendants' website.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks to permanently enjoin the defendant from marketing the software, an order to provide the plaintiff all copies of the software, compensatory damages of not less than $250,000, damages equal to all profits damages suffered by plaintiff, all court costs, punitive damage not less than $1 million, and any further relief as this court sees fit. It is represented by Michael Schroer of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP in Edwardsville and Bryan P. Sugar of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP in Chicago.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:16-cv-00623

EAST ST. LOUIS — A licensed practical nurse is suing Murray Development Center and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, an employer and labor union, citing alleged wrongful termination and breach of duty of fair representation.

Julia Vaughn filed a complaint on June 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against the defendants, alleging violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act and breach of duty.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that, in January 2015, she was struck by an autistic patient, causing her to sustain fractures to three vertebrae in her neck. Her injuries required her to file FMLA benefits, the suit says, also alleging that she was subjected to retaliation for exercising her rights under the FMLA and was terminated from employment on August 15, 2015. The plaintiff holds Murray Development Center and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees responsible because the first defendant allegedly terminated her employment in retaliation for her taking leave under FMLA and the second defendant allegedly refused to pursue her grievance.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensation for lost wages, punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. She is represented by Lawrence P. Kaplan and Susan Kister of Kaplan Associates LLC in St. Louis.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:16-cv-00624

EAST ST. LOUIS — A minor child and friend are suing Abbott Laboratories Inc., a pharmaceutical company, citing alleged breach of express and implied warranties, concealment and misrepresentation.

J.G., a minor by and through Michelle Cowin-Gantz, individually and as next friend of J.G., filed a complaint on June 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Abbott Laboratories Inc., alleging that the pharmaceutical company allegedly breached its duty through negligent acts or omissions.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that J.G. suffered injuries as a result of the mother's ingestion of Depakote during her pregnancy. The injured child was born with a major heart defect and will continue to suffer permanent injury, physical and mental pain, loss of normal life and economic damages, the suit says. The plaintiffs holds Abbott Laboratories Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly defectively designed and manufactured and inadequately tested the drug; lacked proper warnings as to the true danger of using Depakote; and refused to communicate the true nature and extent of the risk of using it.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against the defendant in excess of the jurisdictional requisite for damages, costs of this suit and any other relief that will fairly and adequately compensate their damages. They are represented by Avram Blair of Avram Blair & Associates PC in Houston.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:16-cv-00619

It's so basic. Get an estimate. Look it over. Approve or reject it, in whole or in part, based on your finances and the need for the services offered.

Say it's your car and you're getting a tune-up. The mechanic tells you there are half a dozen other things you ought to have done as well, if you want your car to last and run properly, but the estimated total for this deluxe treatment is several hundred dollars, which is more than you can handle at the moment.

The obvious questions, then, are how much more can you afford to spend now and which, if any, of the additional  recommended repairs are absolutely essential and cannot safely be put off until later when money's less tight?

You won't stand for an estimate that's not broken down into component parts. Unless it's itemized, you have no way of understanding exactly what's being proposed and how much of it you want to authorize.

Nor do you tolerate items with vague or mystifying descriptions. If you don't know what the mechanic's talking about, how can you give the go-ahead?

Another thing you don't tolerate is getting a multipage estimate and being told you have only minutes to look it over and make up your mind.

Again, this is so basic, and everybody understands it and operates accordingly – except for shady operators like Mike Madigan and his minions, who gave state representatives less than three hours to read his 500-page proposed budget with a $7 billion deficit built in. Yes, $7 billion!

Republican Rep. Dwight Kay of Glen Carbon challenged Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie to justify some of the items.

After six minutes of lame responses, Kay concluded: “It's pretty obvious you've never run a business. You've never had to account for money and debt has no impact on you whatsoever, especially when it has to do with taxpayer funds…. This is simply embarrassing.”

So it is.

EAST ST. LOUIS — A proposed administratrix of a deceased man's estate is suing Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Pfizer Inc., citing alleged negligence, design defect, failure to warn, product liability and breach of express warranty.

Katheen Odum, as proposed administratrix of the estate of Oliver Becker, deceased, filed a complaint on June 10 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against the pharmaceutical companies, alleging that they violated the Consumer Protection Law.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that  Becker was prescribed with Eliquis from January 2014 until his death on June 12, 2014. As a result of using Eliquis, he suffered severe physical pain and personal injuries, emotional injuries, medical expenses and internal bleeding which ultimately lead to his death, the suit says. The plaintiff holds Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Pfizer Inc. responsible because the defendants allegedly designed, researched, manufactured, tested, advertised, promoted, marketed, sold and distributed Eliquis, while concealing theirs knowledge of Eliquis’ defects from the public and the medical community and failing to disclose that there is no means to reverse the anticoagulation effects of Eliquis.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against the defendants in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the court together with interest, costs and the disbursements of this action. She is represented by Eric D. Jackstadt of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC in Edwardsville.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:16-cv-00630

Builders of the Stan Musial Bridge, facing trial on a suit claiming they fired crane oiler Terry Deets because of his white skin, chose to settle with him instead.

His lawyer, John Singer of Chicago, filed notice of voluntary dismissal in U.S. district court on June 2.

Earlier this year, Seventh Circuit appellate judges in Chicago ruled that Deets deserved a trial.

They reversed District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel, who had granted summary judgment to Massman Construction, Traylor Brothers, and Alberici Constructors.

The companies built the bridge in a joint venture.

Deets’s union referred him to the project in 2012, and he started working that May.

Project superintendent John Todt laid him off in July.

According to Deets, Todt said, “My minority numbers aren’t right. I’m supposed to have 13.9 percent minorities on this job and I’ve only got 8 percent.”

His pier superintendent told him he was “sorry to hear about this minority thing,” court records show.

Todt replaced Deets with a minority person.

Deets rotated through short term assignments the rest of the year, and the builders terminated him in December.

He sued them in 2013, claiming they laid him off for no other reason than to create a position for an individual based on their minority status. He sought back pay, front pay, lost benefits, compensatory damages and punitive damages.

Rosenstengel set trial in February 2015, but granted summary judgment to the builders in January 2015.

She wrote that in order to accept Deets’s view, “we must assume that Todt is referring to Deets’s termination and not to the practicality of his hiring.”

Todt’s statement were “entirely consistent with a response to Deets’s concern about further work,” she wrote.

Rosenstengel found nothing suspicious in any reference to minority numbers, given the affirmative action obligations of the builders.

She wrote that if minority numbers were low, a minority worker had to be requested from the union.

Seventh Circuit Chief Justice Diane Wood and Justices Ann Williams and Richard Posner reversed her this February.

“Based on Todt’s statement, it does not take any inference to conclude that Deets was laid off because he was not a minority,” Williams wrote.

“That race was the factor that led to Deets’s termination is clear on the face of Todt’s statement.

“We are puzzled by the district court’s conclusion that Todt’s statement related directly to his decision not to rehire Deets rather than his decision to terminate Deets.”

In March, Rosenstengel ordered the builders to notify her promptly as to their decision to pursue a writ at the U. S. Supreme Court.

In May, she set trial for Aug. 30.

After Deets moved to dismiss the suit, Rosenstengel wrote that she would dismiss it and retain jurisdiction over the settlement.

Madison County Circuit Court Judge Barbara Crowder started a one-year term as treasurer of the Illinois Judges Association (IJA) following installation of a new slate of officers for 2016-2017 on June 3.

Crowder told the Record that she was “honored to have been nominated and elected as an officer of the organization.”

She said she has been active in the IJA for many years and has served four three-year terms on the association’s board of directors.

“Being elected treasurer of the Illinois Judges Association means the members of the association recognize my commitment to its goals and my willingness to work with the other officers to assist our members in educating the public and students on the importance of an independent judiciary that administers justice fairly,” Crowder said. 

Crowder said the treasurer works with the IJA executive director by signing checks, overseeing IJA accounts and working with the budget committee on fiscal policy for the association.

During the recent installation of officers, Cook County Associate Judge Israel A. Desierto was installed as president of IJA. Desierto currently presides over civil matters at the Daley Center. 

As a member of the Illinois Judge’s Foundation, he coordinated a program involving educating student detainees at the Cook County Jail Counsuela York Alternative High School.

Desierto also is a member of the Asian American Bar Association and the Filipino American Bar Association. He has served on the board of the Diversity Scholarship Foundation and the Asian American Bar Foundation. He continues to serve as an adjunct professor at IIT/Chicago-Kent College of Law.

Other officers recently installed include first vice president John P. Coady of Taylorville, second vice president James E. Snyder of Cook County, third vice president Margaret J. Mullen of Lake County and secretary Diane M. Shelley of Cook County.

The IJA consists of approximately 1,250 current and retired Illinois state court judges. The organization supports professional development and judicial education programs. 

“We have specific programs to help educate the public and students about the court system, including civics in the classroom for junior high and high school,” Crowder said. “Judges go to schools, invite classrooms to the courthouse, and are available as speakers in the community with the assistance of program materials developed by the Illinois Judges Association.”

Crowder received her bachelor’s degree in speech communications in 1978 and her law degree in 1981, both from the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. She served as an assistant state’s attorney in Madison County until opening Madison County’s first all-women law firm with Stephanie Robbins and Gail Donnelly Bader from 1985 to 1988. She then practiced with her husband at Crowder & Taliana from 1988 until she was appointed as an associate judge.

Crowder was sworn in as an associate judge in January 1999, and then ran and was elected as a circuit judge in the Third Judicial Circuit in 2006. She was retained by the voters in 2012.

CHICAGO – U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert would have had to to resign in order to accept an appointment as trustee of Southern Illinois University if not for his senior status, according to Seventh Circuit appellate judges. 

They disqualified Gilbert from all cases involving Illinois state government in May, but did not force him to choose between the court and the university. 

“Judge Gilbert need not resign from the bench, or from the state governmental body, but may hold both positions,” they wrote. 

“Senior judges are different because they are entitled to hear fewer cases than active judges, and they are also entitled, in most if not all districts, to limit which cases they hear by subject matter or the identity of the litigant.” 

Some senior judges avoid criminal cases and some opt out of suits against the commissioner of Social Security, they wrote, and it is within a senior judge’s prerogative to avoid cases involving state litigants by reducing his caseload. 

“A judge with the privilege of both cutting back on workload and excluding selected categories of litigants cannot be thought to be engaged in misconduct by taking an appointment that will lead to the exclusion of a single category of litigant,” they wrote. 

Their decision resulted in Gilbert transferring 134 cases to Reagan and district judges Nancy Rosenstengel and Staci Yandle, who transferred 96 to him. 

The judges mostly exchanged prisoner suits, with Gilbert losing those from state prisons while gaining those from federal prisons and county jails. 

Gov. Bruce Rauner appointed Gilbert to the university board in February 2015. 

Gilbert asked the board to insulate him from all legal issues, and he left the room when trustees evaluated those issues. 

He instructed the district court clerk not to assign to him any litigation by or against the university, and to transfer such cases on his docket to other judges. 

In April 2015, Chief U.S. District Judge Michael Reagan decided he would conduct a remittance of disqualification hearing in all cases involving the university. 

Reagan wrote that if parties remitted disqualification, a case would be randomly assigned to a district judge excluding Gilbert. 

If parties did not remit disqualification, he would ask Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Diane Wood to assign a judge from another district. 

Reagan’s plan began to collapse in July, at a remittance hearing in a suit that former student Nicholas Hess filed over his expulsion from the university. 

Gilbert had recused himself at the outset of the case, in 2014. 

Reagan assigned it to Yandle, who set trial to start last Sept. 21. 

At the remittance hearing Reagan told Hess’s lawyer, Darrell Dunham of Carbondale, to choose between disqualification and remittance. 

Dunham chose neither, and said he might complain to the Seventh Circuit. 

Reagan gave him a week to file a motion, and in six days Dunham moved to shift the choice to Gilbert. 

Dunham wrote that no litigant should be asked to waive a judge’s duty to follow the judicial canon of ethics. 

He quoted a canon that, “A judge should not serve if it is likely that the organization will either be engaged in proceedings that would normally come before the judge or be regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court.” 

Dunham wrote that the case had been assigned to Yandle for months and that months would be lost if an election was made to reassign the case. 

He wrote that if the case settled, university trustees would approve the settlement, and that if Hess succeeded in the trial court, the trustees would likely have to approve any decision to appeal. 

He explained that he made the motion so Gilbert could make him aware of any precedent that permitted an order requiring Hess to make the election. 

On Aug. 24, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Wood assigned the case to District Judge Larry McKinney of Indianapolis, also on senior status. 

Next day, McKinney delayed trial for four months. 

In September, he denied Dunham’s motion for an order on Gilbert. 

McKinney wrote that Gilbert’s immediate recusal cured any potential conflict of interest, appearance of impropriety, or question of impartiality. 

In December, McKinney granted summary judgment to the university. 

Hess appealed to the Seventh Circuit, where the case remains pending. 

At some point, Hess filed a complaint against Gilbert there. 

Wood decided that Gilbert hadn’t violated the canon Dunham quoted, but that there might be a problem under another canon. 

It provides that a judge may accept a government appointment only on condition that it concerns the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. 

Wood found that according to advisory opinion 44 of the committee on codes of conduct, public colleges and universities didn’t satisfy that condition. 

She asked a former conduct committee member for advice, and the former member said service on a public university’s board was incompatible with the canon. 

Wood told Gilbert she had concerns, and he said he satisfied the condition in the canon because the university has a law school. 

He asked her to appoint a committee to report to the circuit’s judicial council, and she appointed a committee with Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook as chairman. 

At a hearing, someone asked Gilbert if he was willing to cease hearing all cases by and against the state or its employees. 

He said he was willing and maybe even happy to do so, and that closed the case. 

On May 4, the committee recommended that the council dismiss the complaint on the ground that Gilbert promised to take effective corrective action. 

They excused him but didn’t exonerate him. 

“It is unfortunate that he did not consult the committee on codes of conduct before accepting the governor’s offer,” they wrote. 

They rejected his argument that advisory opinion 44 allows service where a university has a law school. 

“A university’s law school is a small part of a university’s operations,” they wrote. 

They wrote that limiting disqualification to suits involving the university was inadequate because the board administers public funds. 

“This makes a member of its board a fiduciary for the State of Illinois as a whole,” they wrote. 

They wrote that any suit that affects state finances could indirectly affect the finances available to universities. 

“The special committee believes that reasonable, well informed observers would conclude that a judge who is also a fiduciary for the state as a whole should not play any part in litigation to which the state or any of its employees is a party,” they wrote. 

They found Gilbert acted transparently, in good faith, with the best intentions; that his willingness to serve the university was admirable; that his grandfather was a professor there and that his father was chairman of the Senate education committee that secured the funds to turn a small teacher’s college into a full fledged university.

CHICAGO – K-Mart can’t argue that customers in its pharmacy discount programs belonged to an organization that qualified for lower prices than the government paid, Seventh Circuit appellate judges ruled in a case from Southern Illinois. 

“We are given no reason to think that there was any meaningful selectivity for the people who joined K-Mart’s programs, and thus that they could be distinguished in any way from the general public,” Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote on May 27. 

“Few of K-Mart’s customers would consider themselves as belonging to a particular group or members of a particular organization just because they accepted K-Mart’s offer of a discount.” 

Wood called the discount programs a flimsy device to frustrate a requirement that pharmacies charge the usual and customary price to the government. 

Justices Frank Easterbrook and David Hamilton concurred. 

They affirmed U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel, who denied summary judgment to K-Mart but certified her decision for review. 

Plaintiff James Garbe, a former K-Mart pharmacist in Ohio, seeks 70 percent recovery for the U.S. government and 26 states under the False Claims Act. 

He seeks 30 percent for himself and his lawyers at Korein Tillery in St. Louis. 

California lawyers Erika Kelton and Larry Zoglin filed the suit in 2008, in the Central District of California. 

The court sealed the case while the government decided whether to intervene. 

The government declined intervention in 2010, and District Judge Jacqueline Nguyen unsealed the case. 

The government and K-Mart asked her to stay the case while negotiations continued, and she granted 180 days. 

The government and K-Mart held a settlement conference in 2011, and asked Nguyen to extend the stay. 

They told her, “The areas for potential disagreement are vast, but the parties are working together to identify where the real disputes lie.” 

K-Mart told her the data spanned 1,300 pharmacies in 46 states over four years, and that the volume of transactions exceeded 10 million. 

In 2012, Nguyen ordered reports on the procedural posture of the case and set a scheduling conference. 

Then she retired, and the case passed to District Judge Michael Fitzgerald. 

Two weeks later K-Mart moved to transfer the case to Southern Illinois. 

The motion connected Garbe’s suit to one that K-Mart pharmacist Michael Yarberry of Kentucky filed in Southern Illinois. 

Lawyers from Illinois, Texas and Ohio filed Yarberry’s suit in 2009, under seal, and the government declined intervention in 2011. 

Three weeks after K-Mart asked for Illinois, Yarberry moved to amend his Illinois complaint so he could allege kickbacks instead of overcharges. 

The distinction didn’t matter to Fitzgerald, who granted transfer in August 2012. 

“Even if Yarberry will focus on the alleged kickback scheme and not the alleged overcharging, the court agrees with K-Mart that a sufficient nexus nevertheless remains between the cases,” Fitzgerald wrote. 

He wrote that both actions alleged that K-Mart’s pharmacy business defrauded government health care programs. 

He also wrote that almost all witnesses lived in Illinois or elsewhere in the Midwest, and that most relevant records were in Illinois or Michigan. 

He wrote that four of seven witnesses K-Mart identified in initial disclosures for Garbe were also identified in initial disclosures for Yarberry. 

Fitzgerald predicted significant overlap throughout discovery if not on the merits;  he deferred to Southern Illinois judges on consolidation. 

Southern Illinois District Judge Michael Reagan, already presiding over Yarberry, took the Garbe case. 

On Oct. 4, 2012, Kelton and Zoglin represented Garbe by telephone in a scheduling conference with Magistrate Judge Philip Frazier. 

They chose to keep their distance. 

On Oct. 24, Aaron Zigler and Robert King of Korein Tillery entered appearances. 

Tillery entered an appearance that November. 

Christopher Hoffman of Korein Tillery later entered an appearance. 

When Rosenstengel joined the court, the Garbe assignment switched to her. 

She set trial for April 2015. 

Rosenstengel denied summary judgment to K-Mart in November 2014, certified her order to the Seventh Circuit in January 2015, and canceled the trial. 

She can resume planning the trial as soon as the mandate arrives from Chicago.

EDWARDSVILLE — A man is suing Geneve L. Wood, individually and as trustee of the Wood Trust and the Geneve Wood Trust, Wayne A. Mollet Auction Service and Wayne A. Mollet, a property owner and auctioneer, citing alleged failure to warn, negligence and insufficient measures taken to prevent injuries.

Jerry Keel filed a complaint on June 10 in Madison County Circuit Court against the defendants, alleging that they failed to keep a clean and safe environment.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on Aug. 4, 2014, he was invited onto the defendants' property, and while he was walking into the barn, the defendants caused the power to be cut, causing all the light to turn off. As a result, he stepped on the metal prongs of a garden fork, causing him to suffer injuries to his right foot and subsequent infection, resulting in multiple surgeries and amputation of his middle toe, he alleges, adding that he incurred medical expenses and other out-of-pocket expenses. The plaintiff holds the defendatns responsible because the defendants allegedly placed a garden fork on the ground with the prongs facing upwards, failed to provide adequate lighting and failed to warn invitees of the placement of the garden fork.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment in his favor for an equitable amount of $50,000, together with the costs of this action. He is represented by John C. Webster of Williamson, Webster, Falb & Glisson in Alton.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 16L802

EDWARDSVILLE – A woman is suing George Weber Chevrolet Company, Julie Lewis and Kevin Lewis, alleging hostile work environment, harassment, retaliation and discrimination.

Alexandria Thompson filed a complaint on June 8 in Madison County Circuit Court against the defendants, alleging that they violated the Civil Rights Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to sexual harassment by defendant Kevin Lewis in the form of inappropriate sexual comments, uninvited and unwanted touching and humiliation. As a result, she says, she has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, pain and suffering, lost wages and lost benefits. The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible because they allegedly failed to take reasonable steps in preventing and remedying her complaint of harassment and discrimination and terminated her employment on Jan. 26, 2015 in retaliation for her reporting harassment, discrimination and hostile work environment.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment in her favor in an amount in excess of $50,000, cost of suit, pre-judgment interest and any other relief as the court deems just and proper. She is represented by Michael J. Brunton and Mary M. Stewart of Brunton Law Offices PC in Collinsville.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 16L794