FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:13-cv-02660_de239> ?p ?o ?g. }

• ilnd;;1:13-cv-02660_de239 RegisterActionDate "2017-01-09" @default.
• ilnd;;1:13-cv-02660_de239 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Final pretrial conference held on 1/3/2017. The Court took under advisement 238743B Motion in limine Number 7, (Dkt. No. 204 ), and the parties were directed to provide the Court supplemental briefing on the issue. (Order at Dkt. No. 230 .) On January 5, 2017, the parties filed their position papers. (Dkt. No. 233 ; Dkt. No. 234 .) The Court also took under advisement Defendants' Motion in limine Number 10. (Dkt. No. 214 .) On January 5, 2017, Defendants additionally filed a Motion for Leave to File Motion in limine Number 11. (Dkt. No. 231 .) On January 9, 2017 the Court ruled on pretrial motions as follows: 1) The Court denies Defendants' Motion in Limine 7 to bar Plaintiff from "disgorging compensation paid to 238743B." Defendants argue that CentiMark did not request forfeiture of 238743B compensation from CentiMark. (Dkt. 233 at 3.) CentiMark brought claims for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment in both their first complaint and in the amended complaint. The prayer for relief includes "disgorgement of all revenues, profits, and compensation of any kind that Defendants received by virtue of their improper conduct[.]" Defendants had notice, therefore, that CentiMark might seek disgorgement of 238743B compensation. The relief sought is also in the province of the jury. Whether the Seventh Amendment gives CentiMark the right to a jury trial depends on whether the case is a Suit at common law, meaning that "legal rights [are] to be ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those where equitable rights alone were recognized, and equitable remedies were administered." Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 41 (1989). There is no question that CentiMark seeks breach of contract, a historically legal claim with legal damages. CentiMark also seeks breach of fiduciary duties, which although historically equitable in nature, may be considered legal and therefore in the province of the jury. Damages are legal, according to the Seventh Circuit, when "plaintiff seeks money for its own coffers." First National Bank of Waukesha v. Warren. 796 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir. 1986); see also Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., No 02 C 3293, 2005 WL 2405797, *4 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2005) (Because plaintiff sought money "for its own coffers the characterization of disgorgement as an equitable action does not control.") CentiMark, in pursuing disgorgement of 238743B compensation, seeks "money for its own coffers." CentiMark also cites to other cases from this district, as well as other circuits, that held that a jury may award disgorgement. For these reasons, the case is a Suit at common law, and the jury may determine the issue of disgorgement when determining damages. In support of their motions in limine Numbers 7 and 11, Defendants primarily rely on the Northern District of Illinois decision, Client Funding Sols. Corp. v. Crim, 943 F.Supp.2d 849 (N.D. Ill. 2013). In Client Funding, the plaintiff sought both legal and equitable relief based on a single claim of breach of fiduciary duty. Id. The District Court noted that it could not locate controlling authority addressing the procedure when plaintiff seeks both a legal and equitable relief as a remedy, and so the Court relied on a District of Delaware bankruptcy case, Cantor v. Perelman, 2006 WL 318666 (D. Del. Feb. 10, 2006). In Cantor there were only two historically equitable claims at issue; breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting that breach. Id. at *4. The court noted that its analysis would have been impacted "if at least one of Plaintiff's claims [had been] legal rather than equitable." Id. at n. 7. Here, because the claims when taken on the whole are legal in nature, the claims and damages sought are in the province of the jury. 2) For the same reasons for which Motion in limine Number 7 was denied, the Court denies Defendants' motion for leave to file motion in limine Number 11, "to strike Plaintiff's jury demand as to Count IV and to bifurcate the equitable claim of breach of fiduciary duty from the jury trial for breach of contract." (Dkt. No. 231 .) 3) The Court denies Defendants' Motion in Limine Number 10 to Bar Plaintiff from proceeding with theories based on breach of fiduciary duties under Pennsylvania law. Neither party contests that Pennsylvania law applies to the breach of contract claims because the employment agreement, but there is a dispute as to whether Pennsylvania or Illinois law applies to the breach of fiduciary duty claims. First, Defendants have never filed a dispositive motion in this case. Yet, Defendants essentially seek to dismiss the fiduciary duty claims through a motion in limine. The arguments should have been raised, prior to the eve of trial, in a dispositive motion. Next, under Illinois' choice of law rules there is no presumptive rule for choice of law for a claim in breach of fiduciary duty and instead the court must rely on the factors from the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws § 145. Miller v. LongAirdox Co., 914 F.2d 976, 978 (7th Cir.1990). Weighing in favor of Illinois, 238743B had an office in West Chicago, was domiciled in Illinois, and the injury and the conduct occurred in Illinois. See id. ("This presumption [in favor of Illinois law] is most difficult to overcome where the conduct causing the injury occurred in the same state where the injury occurred.") The only factor weighing in favor of Pennsylvania is that CentiMark is headquartered there, but because all of the conduct and injury occurred in Illinois, this factor is not significant enough to tip the scale. Illinois economic loss rule, sometimes called the Moorman doctrine, does not bar fiduciary duty claims when the plaintiff also asserts breach of contract. See Cromeens, Holloman, Sibert, Inc. v. AB Volvo, 349 F.3d 376, 398 (7th Cir. 2003) ("The Moorman doctrine does not apply to actions for intentional interference with contract or intentional interference with prospective business advantage.") (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, Defendants' motion in limine Number 10 is denied.Mailed notice (lk, ) (Entered: 01/10/2017)" @default.
• ilnd;;1:13-cv-02660_de239 AdministrativeID "238" @default.
• ilnd;;1:13-cv-02660_de239 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
• ilnd;;1:13-cv-02660_de239 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:13-cv-02660_de205 @default.
• ilnd;;1:13-cv-02660_de239 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:13-cv-02660_de215 @default.
• ilnd;;1:13-cv-02660_de239 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:13-cv-02660_de231 @default.
• ilnd;;1:13-cv-02660_de239 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:13-cv-02660_de232 @default.
• ilnd;;1:13-cv-02660_de239 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:13-cv-02660_de234 @default.
• ilnd;;1:13-cv-02660_de239 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:13-cv-02660_de235 @default.