The attorney representing a former Southern Illinois University student seeks to withdraw as counsel for “irreconcilable differences” in a suit alleging the student was wrongfully expelled from law school.

Attorney Jason J. Bach filed a motion to withdraw as counsel on May 15.

He originally filed a motion for Pro Hac Vice admission on Jan. 10. However, he argues that during discovery additional information surfaced that was not provided to the plaintiff’s counsel prior to representation.

Bach claims irreconcilable differences exist between him and plaintiff Julie Bullock and that his continued representation of the plaintiff may be in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927.

According to the American Bar Association, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires lawyers to file documents that have not been presented for improper purposes and that reasonable inquiries are made regarding the factual and legal allegations.

Further, Rule 11 “authorizes the imposition of deterrent, not compensatory, sanctions.”

The American Bar Association also states that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28 addresses sanctions for lawyers who engage in tactics such as filing duplicate complaints and baseless motions, or who persist in meritless arguments, among other actions.

Magistrate Judge Stephen Williams scheduled a motion hearing for June 6 at 11 a.m.

Bullock is also represented in the case by Bryan E. Drew of Drew & Dew PC in Benton.

Bullock filed her complaint on Jan. 3 against the Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University School of Law, Christopher Beham and Cynthia Fountaine.

In her complaint, Bullock claims the defendants wrongfully expelled her from law school, causing her to lose her Illinois Bar 711 license and her externship with the state’s attorney’s office.

She requests compensatory damages in excess of $75,000, plus interest, attorney’s fees and costs.

Williams had previously scheduled a settlement conference for May 12, but vacated the conference after the defendant argued that a settlement conference would be futile.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:17-cv-9

A Cottage Hills bar and its operators are being sued over a crash allegedly caused by an intoxicated patron.

Ryan and Amanda Brewer filed suit May 18 in Madison County Circuit Court against Doc Holliday's Saloon and operators Brett Dixon and Steven Vollmer claiming they sold the alcohol that allegedly intoxicated patron Alexus Pate.

According to the complaint, Pate's vehicle struck Ryan Brewer's on Route 111 in Cottage Hills on June 28, 2016, causing severe and permanent injuires.

Amanda Brewer claims that the incident has deprived her of the companionship and society of her husband, as well as the support he provided.

The Brewers are represented by Patrick Johnston of Johnston Law Office in Edwardsville.

In their six-count suit they seek in excess of $50,000 in damages.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 17-L-671

A bicyclist is suing the Collinsville owners of a black dog that allegedly attacked him without provocation while he was riding in front of their home in November 2015.

Howard Laidlaw filed suit May 17 in Madison County Circuit Court against Fred and Kristen Sarrach claiming that the dog's attack caused him to sustain severe, painful and disabling injuries to his hip and shoulder.

He claims he has incurred medical expenses as well as was hindered from engaging in full employment and from attending to his usual duties and affairs of daily living.

Laidlaw also claims the incident caused damage to his bicycle.

He blames the defendants for failing to take measures to secure or confine the dog or prevent it from attacking him.

His suit seeks in excess of $50,000 in damages,

He is represented by Laura Schrick, Natalie Lorenz and Joseph Harvath of Mathis, Marifian and Richter in Belleville.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 17-L-668

A family who formerly had property in Granite City are suing the city and several officials for allegedly harassing them for keeping chickens on their property in conjunction with their religious beliefs.

Ceara Woody, Michael Woody and Tempest Hornsley filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on May 19 against Granite City, Steve Willaredt, administrator of the Granite City building and zoning division; John Birdsong, David Henn, Rick Shelton, Ralph Walden, who were each employed by the Granite City building and zoning department, in their official and personal capacities; and Capt. Gagich, Lt. Werths, Pt. Mangiaracino, Pt. Donahey, Sergeant Wojitowicz, Pt. Hadley and Pt. Roberts in their official capacities with the police department.

The plaintiffs are represented in the case by Armbruster Dripps Winterscheidt & Blotevogel LLC in Maryville.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege they resided at 300 Dale in Granite City, which was owned by Ceara Woody until May 2016.

They claim that between October 2014 and July 2015, Michael Woody litigated ordinance violations with Granite City that were issued by Willaredt and the building and zoning defendants. The defendants allegedly told the plaintiffs that keeping chickens on the property in conjunction with their religious beliefs violated city ordinances.

The plaintiffs claim that until May 2016, the building and zoning defendants “engaged in a course of conduct designed to force plaintiffs to move out of Granite City,” by allegedly entering the property on several occasions without permission or a warrant and issuing dozens of citations that were eventually dismissed.

The suit states that the alleged trespasses occurred around the times Michael Woody filed appellate briefs in their litigation against the city for ordinance violations.

In one provided incident, Michael Woody filed a reply brief with the appellate court on May 22, 2015, and the Granite City fire department entered the property five days later to investigate a “fire pit.” Then on June 1, 2015, the plaintiffs’ chickens allegedly disappeared.

The plaintiffs claim the chickens “hold profound religious significance” to them.

The suit states that the plaintiffs were issued citations for various reasons, including log grass, an RV on the property, and bad tag ordinance violations.

The plaintiffs also allege the defendants searched their back yard and damaged their garden and allegedly broke into their RV to take photos, which were attached to the citation.

The plaintiffs allegedly called the police department after each incident, but no corrective action was taken, the suit states.

On Dec. 3, 2015, the Fifth District Appellate Court reversed a trial court order affirming an administrative decision fining Woody for keeping farm animals on the property and ordered a new administrative hearing.

Granite City made a settlement offer regarding the violation on Feb. 8, 2016, which expired on Feb. 23, 2016.

Michael Woody claims Walden appeared at the property on March 4, 2016. When Woody attempted to take a photo of Walden, he allegedly assaulted him, the suit states.

Within two months of the alleged assault, Horsley moved out of her parents house.

Michael and Ceara Woody also moved out of the home to a rental property.

Then in May 2016, Ceara Woody signed a quitclaim deed to her home to the bank holding the mortgage.

As a result, the plaintiffs allegedly suffered economic losses exceeding $80,000, damage to Ceara Woody’s credit, loss of thousands of dollars of improvements to the home and yard and sustained injuries to their physical and mental health.

The plaintiffs allege it was custom and policy of the building and zoning defendants to “harass residents it considered unsavory until they moved out of the city,” causing them to engage in “an ongoing pattern of harassment with the intention of forcing the plaintiffs to relocate.”

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:17-cv-534

A crash two years ago at Broadway and Swallow in Highland is subject of a personal injury lawsuit filed May 19 in Madison County Circuit Court.

Plaintiff M. Connie Blackmon claims that on May 23, 2015 she was driving eastbound on Broadway near the intersection of Swallow when defendant Jacob Wellen traveling westbound caused a collision.

Blackmon alleges that Wellen was driving under the influence of alcohol as well as illegally operating an electronic device while driving.

She claims she suffered "great" injuries and trauma, and seeks in excess of $50,000 in damages.

Blackmon is represented by Alton attorney John J. Hopkins.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 17-L-682.

The owner of Domino’s Pizza argues that arbitration is proper in a delivery driver’s class action seeking compensation for vehicle expenses

MBR Management Corporation filed a motion to stay proceedings on May 9 through attorneys Rodney Harrison, David Schenberg and Meredith Lopez of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC in St. Louis.

The defendant is asking the court to stay proceedings pending decisions out of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lewis v Epic Systems Corporation, Morris v Ernst & Young LLP and N.L.R.B. v Murphy Oil USA, Inc. The cases involve an arbitration issue that may be dispositive of this case.

MBR Management filed a memorandum in support of its motion to stay proceedings, arguing that plaintiff Jesse Tourville signed an agreement stating that he would bring any legal action only in arbitration and only on an individual basis.

“Rather than start down the road of such complex litigation, MBR requests that this Court await the decision of the Supreme Court,” the memorandum states. “The Supreme Court’s decision will likely render unnecessary any briefing of the arbitration issue in this case, and may dispose of the litigation itself.”

Tourville filed the complaint for himself and all others similarly situated on April 11, arguing that delivery drivers were not compensated for vehicular wear and tear, gas and other driving-related expenses.

Tourville worked at the Troy Domino’s Pizza and alleges that he and others paid “out-of-pocket” expenses of $13.38 per hour to provide, operate and maintain their vehicles, losing approximately $1.43 each hour they worked on the road.

The plaintiffs allege MBR Management failed to compensate at least the tipped minimum wage rate for each hour worked on the road and failed to properly reimburse delivery drivers’ expenses including cost for gasoline, vehicle depreciation, insurance, maintenance and repairs.

Tourville filed a motion to conditionally certify the proposed class on April 21 through attorneys Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Todd Garber and Chantal Khalil of Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP in New York.

He asks the court to order the defendant to identify all delivery drivers it has employed at any time during the class period.

In his memorandum in support of the motion to conditionally certify the class, he argues that the defendant consented to conditional certification of a nearly identical Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action in another case involving delivery drivers who alleged minimum wage violations.

In this case, Tourville argues, “By systematically under-reimbursing delivery drivers for the significant automotive expenses they incur while delivering pizzas, MBR pushes the drivers’ effectively hourly wage well below the minimum required by the FLSA and state minimum wage laws.”

Tourville adds that although discovery has not yet begun, the evidence justifying conditional certification is compelling. He claims he and MBR delivery driver Alexander Smith, who has opted-in to the collective action, testify that they performed the same work and are paid and reimbursed the same way.

The memorandum states that delivery drivers are paid at or near the minimum wage and are reimbursed on a per-delivery basis “that is insufficient to cover their actual driving expenses, thereby forcing the drivers’ total compensation to fall below minimum wage.”

The plaintiff argues that delivery drivers incur per-mile expenses at a flat rate of $0.75 to $1.20 per delivery.

However, he alleges delivery drivers’ expenses are higher than other drivers “because they regularly drive in urban areas, in stop-and-go traffic, in inclement weather, making multiple stops, frequently turning their engines on and off and – as a result – experience lower gas mileage, more rapid vehicle depreciation, higher insurance rates, and greater vehicular expenses than the average business driver.”

“Because Defendant does not track delivery drivers’ actual expenses, it should provide a reimbursement at least equal to the IRS reimbursement rate,” the memorandum states, which ranges between $0.535 per mile and $0.575 per mile. 

On May 10, MBR Management filed a motion for an extension of time to file a response to Tourville’s motion for conditional certification.

The defendant asks the court to extend its deadline to respond to June 26.

On May 19, Tourville filed a memorandum in opposition to the defendant’s motion for extension of time to respond.

“A stay would serve no purpose other than to financially burden Plaintiff and the other members of the proposed collective and class action by allowing Defendant to preserve an unlawful status quo where it systematically under-reimburses its pizza delivery drivers for the expenses it forces them to incur, thereby pushing the drivers’ hourly wages far below the minimum …” the memorandum states.

The plaintiff further argues that arbitration agreements that ban collective actions in wage and hour agreements are unenforceable.

“Defendant’s stay request is predicated on the hope that the Supreme Court may reverse the Seventh Circuit’s holding in the next term,” the memorandum states. “However, there is no reason to believe the Supreme Court will overrule this Circuit’s well-considered precedent, and workers would be substantially harmed by the delay caused by a stay.”

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:17-cv-373

Two pipeline companies seek to dismiss a suit alleging they contaminated land near Highland following a 2015 oil spill where 100 barrels of crude oil were accidentally released.

Plains All American Pipeline and Plains Pipeline filed a combined motion to dismiss the complaint on April 20 through attorney Alphonse Pranaitis of Rynearson Suess Schnurbusch & Champion LLC in Edwardsville.

They argue that the plaintiffs’ complaint does not identify a physical injury to a property where they have an ownership or possessory interest.

“Indeed, the complaint is devoid of any factual description as to any property owned or leased by any of the three plaintiffs, and any specific physical injury to plaintiff-owned property whether by environmental contamination, oiling or some other mechanism,” the motion states.

The defendants further argue that the claims under the federal Oil Pollution Act should be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the pre-litigation notice standards and they don’t seek recovery for economic losses from actual damage to any property. Instead, they seek economic damages stemming from “stigma” and the perception of risk held by “potential buyers.”

They also argue that the plaintiffs’ claims are “devoid of case-specific facts.”

“The location, nature, and extent of Plaintiffs’ alleged actual legal injuries and damages are a mystery. Plaintiffs’ class allegations are little more than a regurgitation of the rule requirements,” the motion states.

Plaintiffs Kevin Nodine, Cheryl Morr and David Medlock filed the complaint on Feb. 15 through the Driscoll Firm in St. Louis.

They allege a pipeline fitting ruptured or burst at the Pocahontas pump Station on the MP 29 pipeline near the border of Bond and Madison Counties on July 10, 2015. The defendants own and operate the MP 29 pipeline.

The incident allegedly caused more than 4,000 gallons of crude oil to spill into the surrounding waterways in and near Highland, including the creek adjacent to Medlock’s property, over which he has exclusive possession, the suit states.

The spill also allegedly contaminated the lake, which was detected by a resident who reported the spill on an emergency hotline.

Highland is situated next to Silver Lake, a 574-acre body of water that provides the community with its drinking water. Highland also supplies water to the villages of Grantfork, Pierron and St. Jacob from the lake.

A 12-mile stretch of drainage ditches run near the Pocahontas pump station to allow rainwater to flow into Little Silver Creek and then into Silver Lake.

On the day of the oil spill, rainwater was flowing into the drainage ditches, causing the spilled oil to flow from the impaired containment dike at the station into the drainage ditches, toward the creek and ultimately to Silver Lake, the suit states.

The plaintiffs claim the oil contamination caused damages on Highland residents’ properties and the environment. The impacted area allegedly includes 380 residential parcels and 120 agricultural parcels.

The suit states that the pipeline’s leak detection system at the Pocahontas Pump Station was defective and failed to set off any alarms when the oil spilled into the containment dike, a backup storage container.

The plaintiffs also allege the defendants were aware that erosion had caused leakage between a drain pipe and a catchment berm of the containment dike but they failed to make any immediate repairs.

The suit states that while the defendants made a public apology for the oil spill, they have not compensated the community affected by the contamination.

The Pocahontas Pump Station is located in a rural agricultural area about 2.5 miles from the town of Pocahontas and six miles from the Capwood Pipeline that runs from All America’s Patoka Station to Wood River, the suit states.

The plaintiffs claim an appraisal company found that residential properties in or near an area affected by an oil spill experienced a reduction in property values in excess of 10 percent.

They seek an order requiring the defendants to restore the properties and waterways affected by the spill. They also seek compensation for damages, fees and court costs, punitive damages and individual relief.

The lawsuit also names John Doe 1-10 as defendants, which include unknown corporations or partnerships.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:17-cv-163

A patient is suing the manufacturers of a mesh intended for hernia repair after it allegedly caused damages and must be removed.

Gary Goodson filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on May 22 against Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon Inc.

In his complaint, Goodson claims he was implanted with a Physiomesh device at Anderson Hospital in Maryville in an attempt to repair a recurrent ventral incisional hernia.

Goodson alleges that due to continuous complications with the implanted device, he requires revision surgery to correct the “dangerous and defective” Physiomesh.

The suit states that the Physiomesh incorporates give distinct layers, which is not used in any other hernia repair product sold in the U.S.

“The multi-layer coating was represented and promoted by the Defendants to prevent or minimize adhesion and inflammation and to facilitate incorporation of the mesh into the body, but it did not.

“Instead the multi-layer coating prevented adequate incorporation of the mesh into the body and caused or contributed to an intense inflammatory and chronic foreign body response resulting in an adverse tissue reaction including migration and damage to surrounding tissue in the form of sclerotic, granulomatous and/or fibrotic tissue and improper healing,” the suit states.

The plaintiff alleges the impermeable multi-layer coating prevents fluid escape and provides a “breeding ground for bacteria” which cannot be eliminated by the body’s immune response.

He also alleges the mesh cannot withstand normal abdominal forces and layers can become adhered to organs, causing damage.

The plaintiff alleges the defendants were responsible for the research, design, development, testing manufacture, production, marketing, promotion, distribution and sale of the device.

He also alleges the device was defectively designed, was not reasonably safe for its intended use in hernia repair, and the risks of the design outweighed any potential benefits associated with the design.

“Neither Plaintiff Gary Goodson nor his implanting physician were adequately warned or informed by Defendants of the defective and dangerous nature of Physiomesh,” the suit states.

Goodson seeks more than $75,000 in compensatory damages, plus court costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, punitive damages and any other relief the court deems just.

He is represented by John Carey, Jeffrey Lowe, Andrew Cross, Sarah Shoemake Doles and Alyson Petrick of Carey Danis & Lowe in Clayton, Mo.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:17-cv-540

BENTON - Top Justice Department officials haven’t approved a settlement that lawyer Tom Keefe and U.S. attorney Donald Boyce drafted last year in a wrongful death suit against the government. 

Keefe moved to enforce the settlement in U.S. district court on May 16, but Boyce assistant David Pfeffer countered with a motion for more time. 

Yandle granted Pfeffer’s motion at a hearing on May 22, setting a June 30 deadline. 

She took Keefe’s motion under advisement until then, and asked for a status report on June 16. 

Keefe represents the estate of Rodolfo Romo, who died in an explosion at Totall Metal Recycling in Granite City in 2014. 

He sued Totall Metal Recycling and the United States in 2015, on behalf of estate administrator Adriana Ornelas. 

The complaint alleges that the United States caused mortar shells to be transmitted from Fort Irwin in California to Totall Metal Recycling. 

Keefe wrote that one or more mortar shells had not been rendered inert. 

He wrote that the United States knew or should have known that shells not rendered inert posed an unreasonable risk in recycling centers. 

The court clerk assigned the case to District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel. 

She recused herself, and the action passed to Yandle. 

Totall Metal Recycling moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Ornelas could seek relief through workers’ compensation. 

Keefe conceded the point and Yandle granted the motion, but by then the United States had filed a cross claim against Totall Metal Recycling. 

Last year, Totall Metal Recycling filed a counter claim against the United States. 

Yandle set trial to start this Jan. 9, and she received trial briefs on Dec. 27. 

Keefe proposed to apply California law on negligence. 

He wrote that the wrongful act occurred where the United States failed to identify a live explosive before shipping it. 

California damage law would not apply, he wrote, because the injury occurred in Illinois and damages would be awarded to Romo’s next of kin, all in Illinois. 

He wrote that Ornelas would claim damages for grief and anguish. 

Keefe himself helped write and advance the Illinois bill that allows juries at wrongful death trials to award damages for pain and suffering. 

Pfeffer wrote in his trial brief that, “In the absence of a true conflict regarding the standard of care owed in a safety inspection, the governing choice of law standard thus defaults to the forum state, Illinois.” 

He wrote that with respect to damages, California law should apply. He also wrote that Illinois and California differ on damages for grief and sorrow. 

“Eyewitness Donald Wanamaker is expected to testify that Mr. Romo picked up one of the items in the crate and struck the contents several times, producing metallic ‘ting’ noises followed by the explosion,” Pfeffer wrote. 

He wrote that Totall Metal Recycling had reasonable notice that munitions scrap in its possession might contain dangerous items, and failed to take reasonable precautions such as informing and training employees. 

Totall Metal Recycling didn’t file a trial brief. 

On Dec. 30, the parties notified Yandle that they settled all claims in principal. 

She entered an order allowing 90 days for consummation, and she wrote that the settlement was subject to final approval by the Department of Justice. 

In March, at the deadline, the parties asked for more time. 

She granted it and told them to report to her before May 18. 

Keefe moved to enforce the settlement on May 16, writing that all delays resulted from failures by the United States and Totall Metal Recycling to sign releases. 

“Plaintiffs have signed everything they have been asked to sign as soon as presented to them,” he wrote. 

He wrote that the stated reason for more time was that Totall Metal Recycling continued to be recalcitrant and obstreperous. 

“The family of Rodolfo Romo has been without a husband and bread winner since the date of this accident, and plaintiff respectfully submits that a case settled more than five months ago should have been paid long before today’s date,” he wrote. 

Pfeffer moved for more time on May 17. 

On May 19, on behalf of Totall Metal Recycling, Michael Nester of Belleville supported Keefe’s motion. 

Nester wrote that he “engaged in extensive and perhaps exhaustive negotiations with the Department of Justice.” 

He wrote that the department made demands on terms and conditions that were inappropriate, overreaching, unilateral, and burdensome. 

On May 18, Nester wrote, the United States made a proposal that might reduce Totall Metal Recycling’s concerns about indemnification. 

Nester disagreed with Keefe about his client being recalcitrant and obstreperous. 

“[I]ts efforts were necessary to protect its interests in regard to terms and conditions imposed by the Department of Justice which were unacceptable to Totall Metal Recycling and inconsistent with its perceived legal obligations under the negotiated settlement.” 

Also on May 19, Pfeffer opposed Keefe’s motion.  

“With respect to claims where the aggregate damages claimed by the plaintiff exceed $4 million, the Attorney General has delegated full settlement authority to the deputy attorney general and to the associate attorney general,” Pfeffer wrote. 

He wrote that they were the only individuals who could bind the United States to an enforceable agreement. 

“To date, the United States attorney’s office has not received all of the materials necessary to make the final request for authorization, and the Attorney General’s designee has therefore not yet authorized the settlement,” he wrote. 

“Accordingly, there is no final settlement for the court to enforce and plaintiff’s motion must be denied.” 

Pfeffer disagreed that his proposals were inappropriate and burdensome. 

He wrote that the language in question asked Totall Metal Recycling to be responsible for future claims seeking to recover payments made by Totall Metal Recycling as a result of Romo’s death. 

“The United States seeks to avoid a future obligation to repay TMR’s settlement outlays in some future subrogation or lienholder suit, such as from TMR’s insurers,” Pfeffer wrote.

“Good progress has been made to address the parties’ mutual concerns, but TMR has not yet agreed.” 

On May 22, when Yandle extended the deadline to June 30, she wrote that she would not grant another extension absent exceptional circumstances.

Two of three scheming shakedown artists have met their fate. One died of a heart attack after fraudulent activities were exposed. Another has plea-bargained and awaits sentencing. The third has pled not guilty to the same charges, and faces trial. 

A prominent St. Clair County judge has lots of questions to answer for his role in rulings that helped facilitate the shakedown scheme.  

Attorneys Paul Duffy (deceased), John Steele, and Paul Hansmeier contrived to extort millions of dollars from online porn users. Purporting to represent internet sites whose obscene videos had been accessed illegally (and sometimes secretly sharing proprietary interests in them), they demanded user addresses from internet service providers (ISPs) so they could identify the non-paying peepers and offer them the opportunity to protect the privacy of their prurient pastimes with out-of-court settlements. 

When the trio's local counsel, at first retired judge Michael O’Malley, moved for early discovery on behalf of a putative client in December 2011, St. Clair County Circuit Judge Andrew Gleeson readily granted it, allowing the plaintiffs to serve subpoenas for the identities of the John Does in question.  

Gleeson's ruling was reversed by Fifth District appellate judges. Undaunted, he approved a second motion for discovery against another ISP in 2013, but was reversed again. 

The scheme began to unravel when a federal judge in California sanctioned the trio, referring their names to the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Attorney in Central California, and the state and federal bars in which they practice. 

Last December, a grand jury in Minnesota federal district court indicted Steele and Hansmeier on charges of wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, and perjury. 

Steele has since pled guilty and been disbarred by the State of Illinois. He faces eight to 10 years in prison, fines of up to $300,000, and a restitution order for $3 million. 

What will be the fate of Paul Hansmeier? What fate should be faced by now-Chief Judge Andrew Gleeson?

EDWARDSVILLE — A loan collection agency is suing a Madison County business and its owner, citing alleged breach of contract for failing to pay a loan.

Key Star Capital Fund LP, assignee of U.S. Bank NA, filed a complaint on May 4 in the Madison County Circuit Court against R-CO Inc. and Kenneth Petersen alleging that the defendants failed to comply with their written contract to pay monthly installments on a loan.

According to the complaint, plaintiff alleges that on Jan. 10, 2003, plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendants to grant a loan in the original principal amount of $75,000 to be paid in monthly installments with interest. On Aug. 10, 2016, plaintiff alleges it contacted the defendants regarding nonpayment of installments due and owing on that date and thereafter. As of April 5, 2017, the balance owed to plaintiff amounts to $78,325.27, not including fees and costs. 

The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible because they allegedly failed to honor their obligation pursuant to the terms of the guaranty and failed to pay all outstanding indebtedness due and owing under the terms of the agreement.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment in an amount to be established through the evidence acceptable to this court, award for additional expenses incurred and such other and further relief as is appropriate and just. They are represented by Amanda E. Losquadro of Chuhak and Tecson PC in Chicago.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 17-L-598

The Illinois Senate passed a series of tax hikes May 23 that will raise more than $5.4 billion in new tax revenue. Senate Bill 9 hikes income taxes, expands sales taxes, and increases franchise taxes.

The tax hikes are part of a record $37 billion budget that the Senate also passed May 23.

The Senate approved the tax hike bill by a 32-26 margin, with no Republicans voting in favor.

SB 9 does the following:

• Hikes personal and corporate income taxes by $5 billion. The personal income tax rate increases to 4.95 percent from the current 3.75 percent rate. The corporate income tax rate rises to 7 percent from 5.25 percent.
• Expands the sales tax to laundry and dry-cleaning services, as well as storage and other services to bring in $55 million.
• Raises $54 million in cable and satellite TV taxes.
• Closes corporate loopholes worth $125 million.

The total $5.4 billion tax hike means each Illinois household will eventually have to pay $1,125 in additional taxes annually.

Under the Democrats’ plan, new taxes will apply to many services previously untaxed. And because the Senate has failed to pass a property tax reform package, Illinoisans will continue to see their property taxes – the nation’s highest – go up even more.

Because the income tax hike is retroactive to Jan. 1, 2017, personal income taxpayers will pay an effective tax rate of 5.81 percent on their earnings for the remainder of the year.

It’s not clear what reforms might come with the tax hike since the Senate decided to break apart the so-called “grand bargain” budget legislation last week. Previously, the Senate had hoped to package as many as 13 bills together, meaning that if one bill did not pass, the entire package would fail.

Now, the Senate is voting on bills separately. That means it’s difficult to know what spending reforms, if any, will be part of the $5.4 billion tax hike or the budget.

But the fact that the Senate plans to spend a record $37 billion and to collect $5.4 billion in new taxes means Illinoisans can expect little in the way of reforms.

Tax hikes over reforms

Illinois Senate Democrats are choosing to hike taxes again rather than enact much-needed spending reforms.

This tax hike is reminiscent of 2011, when the General Assembly increased personal income taxes by 67 percent and corporate income taxes by 46 percent.

Illinois state government took in $32 billion in new tax revenues from 2011 through 2014, which relieved pressure to enact real spending reforms.

Lawmakers simply spent the money and left Illinois on a budgetary cliff when the tax hike expired. And because the state’s structural spending problems had gone unaddressed, and despite the $32 billion in new tax revenue, by 2014, unfunded pension liabilities had increased by more than $20 billion and the state’s bill backlog totaled $7 billion.

Real budget solutions exist

More tax hikes will only drive more residents to flee the state and punish those who can’t leave. And, as in 2011, tax hikes will only perpetuate the state’s structural problems and deflate the pressure to enact real change.

Illinois can no longer put off real spending reforms. Politicians have to pass a balanced budget that actually solves the state’s structural problems without tax hikes.

The Illinois Policy Institute has provided a reform road map – Budget Solutions 2018 – that balances the budget without tax hikes.

The plan provides tax relief to struggling homeowners through a comprehensive property tax reform package, begins an end to the pension crisis through 401(k)-style plans, and makes changes to curb bloated administrative expenses in higher education.

Most importantly, it doesn’t punish taxpayers for the political failures of the past few decades.

Illinoisans have paid for politicians’ ineptitude and corruption long enough. They deserve a reform budget and a state government that finally spends within its means.

To the Editor:

HBO debuted its original movie on Ponzi-schemer Bernie Madoff over the weekend. Based on Henriques' book "The Wizard of Lies," the film (and book) tells the chilling tale of Madoff's fraudulent investment scheme in which more than 2,200 people lost almost $20 billion in retirement savings.

That is a lot of victims losing a lot of money.

But it's peanuts compared to what public pensioners – in Illinois and elsewhere – stand to lose if drastic reform measures aren't taken soon. More on this in a moment. 

A Ponzi scheme is a form of fraud in which early investors see quality returns, not because their money was invested wisely as the investors are led to believe, but because new investors fund the payouts. The cycle perpetuates itself – more and more new investors are needed to continue to fund previous investors' returns at an unbeknownst higher risk to themselves – until it inevitably collapses.

In Madoff’s case, the collapse occurred in 2008, after almost 30 years, when the housing bubble burst and the economy was sent into the Great Recession. Simplistically, far fewer new investors could be found, and prior investors, many hurting because of the turn in the economy, asked for their full investments back.

Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison after pleading guilty to multiple counts of fraud. His victims suffered untold losses.

What’s the point of my Madoff history lesson?

A strong case can be made that public pensions – including in Illinois – are eerily similar to a Ponzi scheme, and that a similar collapse might be inevitable. That would mean an untold number of new victims that would make the Madoff case seem relatively minor by comparison.

The difference between a Madoff-like Ponzi scheme and the public pension crisis is that government is complicit in the latter, and that dedicated public servants, state retirees and taxpayers are the ones at risk.

I think we all can agree that taxpayers and state workers who have spent their careers serving Illinois residents, teachers included, don’t deserve that.

Doubt that will happen in Illinois or with other public pension systems in the U.S.? Let’s start with Puerto Rico.

The U.S. territory in the eastern Caribbean declared a form of bankruptcy (after Congressional approval) earlier this month because of massive debt that included $50 billion in underfunded pensions. In a story headlined "In Puerto Rico, pension fund works like a Ponzi scheme," the New York Times reported the following:

"Puerto Rico, where the money to pay teachers’ pensions is expected to run out next year, has become a particularly extreme example of a problem facing states including Illinois, New Jersey and Pennsylvania: As teachers’ pension costs keep rising, young teachers are being squeezed — sometimes hard. One study found that more than three-fourths of all American teachers hired at age 25 will end up paying more into pension plans than they ever get back."

For pensioners in Puerto Rico, where a recovery plan is still being devised, it could mean pennies of the dollar of what they were promised.

For current and future pensioners in Illinois and elsewhere, a similar fate awaits if drastic reforms don't happen.

Illinois' five state pension funds are now underfunded by more than $130 billion, worst in the nation. At that deficit, the pension funds have in hand just about 37 cents of every dollar they will owe to current and future pensioners.

But it actually could be much worse than that.

Money set aside to fund pensions – from taxpayers and public employees – is invested to grow the dollar pool. But most pension systems have over-estimated the rate of returns on these investments. As recently as 2014, Illinois' Teachers Retirement System projected an inflated 8 percent annual return rate. That projection was dropped to 7.5 percent three years ago. Just last year, Illinois' State Employees Retirement System downgraded its rate of return estimate to 7 percent. Each of these downgrades cost Illinois taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually because the taxpayers are legally required to make up the difference.

Dan McCaleb

Illinois News Network

St. Clair County residents alleging several tax buyers participated in a bid-rigging conspiracy filed oppositions to the defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

According to the complaint, two couples sued St. Clair County Treasurer Charles Suarez and tax buyers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Oct. 17, 2014, alleging a conspiracy similar to one that sent former Madison County treasurer Fred Bathon to prison.

John Bloyer Jr., Adrianne Bloyer, Kevin Dvorak and Kathleen Dvorak, all of O’Fallon, claim the alleged conspirators artificially inflated interest rates at tax sales in 2007 and 2008. They claim Suarez illegally rigged bids at sales of delinquent taxes to enrich Democratic campaign contributors.

The motions for summary judgment were all separately filed March 24, making individual arguments.

On behalf of the plaintiffs, Nelson Mitton of Riezman Berger PC in St. Louis filed several memorandums in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on May 12.

Barrett Rochman, Sabre Group LLC and SI Securities LLC filed their motion for summary judgment through Andrew Kasnetz, Timothy Sansone and Natalie Kussart of Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard PC in St. Louis.

Kenneth Rochman also filed a separate motion for summary judgment through Sansone, Kasnetz and Kussart.

They argue that the plaintiffs are barred from bringing Sherman antitrust claims against the defendants, claiming they are “indirect purchasers” because their bank redeemed their property on their behalf.

In the plaintiffs’ opposition, Mitton argued that the plaintiffs are direct purchasers of the over-penalized property taxes because the entire cost of the redemption was rolled into their mortgage principal.

“Even if Plaintiffs are considered indirect purchasers of the tax bids, they would still have standing to bring their Sherman anti-trust claims as there would be no threat of Defendants making duplicitous payments or of the court having to waste time apportioning the overcharge costs to multiple parties,” the opposition states.

Rochman, Sabre Group and SI Securities also argue that they lacked monopoly power over the St. Clair County tax auctions and cannot be found liable.

However, Mitton argues that evidence shows the defendants “possessed exclusionary power and price setting power over the tax auctions.” They allegedly won 87.81 percent of the tax auction bids, with 92.3 percent of those purchases made at the maximum of 18 percent.

Defendants John Vassen, Joseph Vassen and VI Inc. filed their one-page motion for summary judgment through Paul Slocomb of Hoffman Slocomb LLC in St. Louis.

They argue that the plaintiff’s claims are time-barred under the statute of limitations.

Mitton wrote in the opposition that the plaintiffs didn’t discover they were injured until June 2014, and their allegations rely upon the discovery rule, “which postpones the beginning of the limitations period to the date when the plaintiff discovers or could have discovered that he has been injured.”

Defendants Dennis Ballinger Sr., Dennis Ballinger Jr., Empire Tax Corp. and Vista Securities Inc. filed their motion for summary judgment through Gordon Nash, Daniel Delaney and Patrick Kelleher of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP in Chicago.

They argue that the plaintiffs have not provided adequate evidence supporting claims of an antitrust conspiracy.

In the opposition, Mitton argues that the plaintiffs have adduced evidence of an antitrust conspiracy that excludes the possibility that the defendants were acting independently.

“Although all Defendants in this case certainly wish otherwise, there is simply no requirement that Plaintiffs come forth with direct evidence of an antitrust conspiracy, which may be proved solely by circumstantial evidence,” the opposition states.

“It is not surprising that there is no smoking gun in the form of an admission in this case.

“For example, Barrett Rochman, convicted of price-fixing the neighboring Madison County tax sales, testified that the tax buyers explicitly avoided conversations about the penalty rate. The convicted tax buyers all plead guilty to an ‘implicit agreement.’

“This case, like many antitrust cases, is a case that is proved by circumstantial evidence,” the opposition continues.

Mitton argues that the tax purchaser defendants only bid the maximum penalty rate, in “sharp contrast” to years both before and after the sale.

“Because of the nature of the auction, which was open outcry in a room, the tax purchaser defendants had more than ample opportunity to meet,” the opposition states. “There is no dispute that some did so, lunching together.”

The Ballinger defendants also argue that they had no way to prevent non-collusive tax buyers from undercutting their collusive bids.

In response, Mitton argues that competing tax purchaser, Dr. Ken Brosh, testified that lower bids were ignored by county officials even when they were brought to their attention.

“Moreover, the claim that the bids simply could have been underbid is actually indicative of collusion, and tends to exclude the possibility of independent action. In absence of collusion, one would expect that underbidding would have occurred. Its absence, shown by records, therefore indicates collusion,” the opposition states.

The defendants further argue that class certification is improper because individual damages could not be calculated.

Mitton alleges the argument fails because most of the parcels sold at the maximum percentage.

“Put simply, 90% of the parcels went at 18% during the affected years. If defendants are going to argue that each parcel is unique in contesting certification in this case, this is further evidence of their collusion, because apparently they all uniformly bid only 18% on the (sic) nearly every parcel, indicating collusion,” he wrote.

Mitton argues that no defendant has provided evidence that their interest rates were higher during the affected years and only showed that in general interest rates were higher. The defendants were also only bidding on parcels at low penalty rates.

The Ballinger defendants also argue that the time change for the auction and additional bidders in 2008 explain the bids.

However, Mitton argues that the defendants are “cherry picking” a “favorable” year to support their arguments.

“Defendants make no attempt to compare the tainted sales to prior years, where there was no such change in timing, because they know it defeats their argument,” the opposition states.

St. Clair County and Suarez filed their motion for summary judgment through Garrett Hoerner of Becker Hoerner Thompson & Ysursa PC in Belleville.

They argue that the plaintiffs’ conspiracy claim cannot be based on a violation of the Illinois Anti-Trust Act.

Mitton argues in the opposition that the plaintiffs have properly pleaded a claim of civil conspiracy by pleading that conduct by the defendants constitutes an “overt, tortious or unlawful act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.”

“The unlawful acts included engaging in a bid rigging and price fixing scheme, the implementing of a “no trailing bid” policy that eliminated the competitive auction process, and directing the auctioneer to disperse winning bids among the campaign contributors of Charles Suarez,” Mitton wrote.

St. Clair County and Suarez also argue that they are immune from antitrust claims.

However, Mitton argues that “none of these doctrines apply to Suarez’s actions in conspiring with his fellow Defendants as his conduct was outside the scope of authority that Illinois granted to him and St. Clair County.”

“In the case at hand, Illinois never granted St. Clair County the authority to enter into a monopoly conspiracy with the defending tax bidders. While it is true that Illinois did grant St. Clair the ability to run a tax sale for delinquent taxes, nothing in that statute permitted the county treasurer to develop a scheme to shut out competing tax bidders in favor of certain select few.”

In fact, the county was required to accept only the lowest penalty bid.

Suarez is also not immune against a fiduciary duty claim under the public official immunity doctrine, Mitton argues.

Suarez claims that the public official immunity doctrine bars a finding against him individually, but Mitton points out that a public officer is only immune from individual liability for discretionary duties in good faith.

“As Suarez did not have the discretion to enter into an antitrust conspiracy and allow trailing bids to be ignored, and yet still did so in bad faith, he cannot avail himself of this doctrine.

Defendants Scott Sieron and Raven Securities Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment through Alvin Paulson of Belleville.

They argue that they continued to bid for some parcels at the max rate, meaning the plaintiffs cannot use a “weighted average bid” comparison to show that they participated in a conspiracy.

Mitton argues in the opposition that their “blanket assertion” does not warrant the entry of summary judgment.

“Further, the Sieron defendants have not provided the court with the relevant comparison of their weighted average bids during the conspiracy years. Defendants do not explain why the only comparison they made to the 2006 and 2007 tax sales is the 2013 and on tax sales,” Mitton wrote.

Defendants Scott McLean, Land of Lincoln Securities LLC, White Oak Securities LLC and Algonquin Securities LLC filed their motion for summary judgment through Mark McLean of McCarthy Leonard & Kaemmerer LC in Town and Country, Mo.

They also argue that the plaintiffs cannot use a “weighted average bid” comparison to show that the Sieron defendants participated in conspiracy.

They add that there is no evidence that they participated in a conspiracy.

In the opposition, Mitton wrote that McLean is a convicted felon as a result of his anti-competitive bidding in the Madison County tax sales.

“The bidding in St. Clair was most comparable to Madison County, and there is further evidence that he was receiving beneficial treatment over other tax purchasers,” the opposition states.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:14-cv-1119

MT. VERNON — An appeal stemming from a trial court decision regarding an ex-husband's motion to have two pieces of property owned by his former spouse declared marital property has been denied.

The Fifth District Appellate Court upheld a judgment against Sina Ghatan, affirming a verdict from St. Clair County Circuit Court. His former wife, Eveline Ghatan, had purchased two properties with money that had been given to her by her father. This money had then been deposited by Eveline Ghatan in an account separate from her husband’s before the two houses were ever purchased, therefore allowing her to meet the burden of proof required under Illinois law to have the two houses declared nonmarital property for the case of dividing nonmarital assets during the divorce proceedings.

The petition for divorce by Eveline Ghatan was filed on May 27, 2008.

Sina Ghatan subsequently filed an appeal after the trial court decision. 

Both the lower court and the appeals court found Eveline Ghatan’s proof that the properties were outside of marital assets more credible than the proof provided by Sina Ghatan. The court determined there was no evidence to suggest the trial court had erred in denying Sina Ghatan the chance to reopen evidence that it determined had already been submitted in the original divorce proceedings. It also determined the trial court had not erred in its assessment of the valuation of real estate.

Other issues before the appeals court included the more equal division of retirement accounts to accommodate the separate income made by each spouse. The lower court had initially ruled on a large sum that Sina Ghatan had to deposit in Eveline Ghatan’s retirement account each year, but that sum was lowered substantially to ensure the accounts were on a more equal footing for each of the former spouses.

EAST ST. LOUIS — Chief District Judge Michael Reagan dismissed a complaint from a man claiming his constitutional rights were violated while being held before his criminal proceeding, which is still pending. 

William Ali sought to have all charges in the criminal cases dropped and be released as well as have monetary damages paid.

Ali, who has been held at Madison County Jail in Edwardsville, filed suit against the Madison County Circuit Court, four circuit court judges, a prosecuting attorney, his public defender and his arresting officer.

Judge Reagan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of Illinois ordered the complaint to be dismissed because it did not pass the preliminary screening and ruled the complaint to be frivolous as the facts “are to be liberally construed.”

Ali alleged that several of his constitutional rights were violated during his arrest on Feb. 3, 2016, and the court proceeding that followed. He claimed he was arrested with a warrant that was without probable cause. Ali also claimed that his due process was violated when a judge failed to disclose his jurisdiction as well as when the criminal case proceeded despite a “cease and desist” affidavit against the state. Ali also claims he was subject to “unreasonable delays” along with “oppressive acts of state government” from the defendants listed in the complaint.

The plaintiff claimed the Federal Tort Claims Act as jurisdiction, but failed to name the United States as a defendant, which is required for FTCA jurisdiction in complaints against federal officials. Judge Reagan also explained in the order that the federal court should not overtake jurisdiction for federal constitutional claims when it may interfere with state criminal court.

“Plaintiff seeks this court’s intervention in three pending state criminal proceedings in Madison County Circuit Court," Judge Reagan’s order said. "These proceedings are judicial in nature, and all three involve important state interests, i.e., the adjudication of state criminal law violations. ... The litigation of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims in federal court could certainly undermine ongoing state criminal proceedings."

Judge Reagan also concluded that with the exception of one unnamed arresting officer, all of the defendants Ali lists are not able to be sued.

The order clarified that this does not prevent Ali from “pursuing relief under state tort law or seeking state or federal habeas relief" and that it is "without prejudice to Plaintiff bringing a future civil rights suit against a non-immune defendant.”

BELLEVILLE — Two individuals are suing Credible Exteriors LLC and Randy L. Jackson Jr., a company and its employee, alleging insufficient measures were taken to prevent injuries for a March car crash.

Joseph P. Adams and Angela D. Adams filed a complaint on April 18 in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against the defendants alleging that Credible Exteriors failed to properly train its driver to operate a truck in a careful manner.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that on March 17, 2017, they were severely injured when the vehicle they were riding in on North Belt East near the intersection of Carlyle Avenue in Belleville was struck by a truck being driven by defendant Jackson, who was employed by defendant Credible Exteriors at the time of the accident. The plaintiffs suffered pain, lost wages and permanent disability and will be obligated to expend money for future medical expenses. The plaintiffs hold the defendants responsible because defendant Jackson was allegedly under the influence of intoxicating liquors; plaintiffs claim he failed to observe and obey traffic signaling devices, failed to keep a proper lookout and failed to stop, slow or swerve to avoid the collision.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek damages in excess of $50,000 plus costs of this suit. They are represented by Brad L. Badgley of Brad L. Badgley PC in Belleville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17L201

BELLEVILLE — A driver is suing another motorist, alleging his negligence caused a wreck and injuries.

Ciera Ford filed a complaint on April 20 in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against Jerold R. Clausius alleging that the defendant failed in his duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid putting himself or others in danger.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that, on Aug. 12, 2015, she was driving heading west on West Highway 50 in O'Fallon when plaintiff collided with the defendant's vehicle while Clausius attempted to cross West Highway 50. As a result, Ford claims she suffered physical injuries and was compelled to submit to treatment, causing her to have out-of-pocket expenses for medical bills. 

The plaintiff holds Clausius responsible because he allegedly violated a stop sign, failed to keep a careful lookout and failed to yield the right-of-way.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment for damages in an amount in excess of $50,000, costs of suit and for any further relief deemed necessary and just. She is represented by Christoper K. Geldmacher of Sauter Sullivan LLC in St. Louis.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17-L-207

BELLEVILLE — A motorcyclist is suing driver Patrick D. Knight, alleging he failed to operate his vehicle safely, causing a crash last fall.

David A. Theis filed a complaint on April 18 in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against Patrick D. Knight alleging that he failed to maintain proper control of the automobile he was driving.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on Nov. 1, 2016, he sustained injuries to various parts of his body when the motorcycle he was riding was struck from behind by defendant in Mascoutah. Plaintiff has suffered pain and permanent disability and became obligated to expend money for medical expenses. The plaintiff holds Knight responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to keep proper lookout and to stop, slow or swerve to avoid colliding with plaintiff's motorcycle.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against defendant in excess of $50,000, plus costs of this suit. He is represented by Brad L. Badgley of Brad L. Badgley PC in Belleville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17L199

BELLEVILLE — An O'Fallon motorcyclist is suing a vehicle owner and driver, alleging negligent driving caused a collision.

Charles N. Doolin filed a complaint on April 18 in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against Darius L. Douglas and Carolyn Henderson alleging that the defendants failed their duty to exercise reasonable care with respect to the safety of individuals.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on May 30, 2016, he was lawfully operating a motorcycle on North Smiley Street in a generally northbound direction when he collided with defendant Henderson's Ford Taurus being driven by defendant Douglas at the time of the incident. As a result, Doolin claims he suffered physical injuries, lost wages and medical expenses. 

The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible because defendant Douglas allegedly failed to bring the vehicle to a stop, failed to yield right of way and drove the vehicle in an erratic manner.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment in an amount in excess of $50,000 for his costs herein expended, and for any other relief this court deems just and proper. He is represented by Robert G. Jones of The Jones Law Firm PC in Belleville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17-L-203