ILNews

Attorney blamed for lack of proper relief

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by the U.S. District Court in Hammond in which two plaintiffs were injured by a drunk driver and then awarded less-than-adequate relief from a jury, agreeing that any proper relief denied to the plaintiffs was a result of their attorney.

In Christina Soltys and Danuta Pauch v. Yvonne Costello, No. 06-3175, the 7th Circuit affirmed the District Court didn't err in denying the plaintiffs' eleventh-hour motion to amend their complaint to add a count for punitive damages nor did it err in denying the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial.

Soltys and Pauch were injured in a car accident caused by an intoxicated Costello and sustained serious injuries. Soltys and Pauch hired attorney Benjamin Nwoye, who filed their complaint in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against Costello on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. At the time the complaint was filed in 2004, Nwoye was not yet admitted to practice in Indiana, so when Costello requested a change of venue to the Northern District of Indiana, Nwoye couldn't access documents on the court's electronic system.

Nwoye repeatedly defaulted in responding to discovery requests, leading Costello's attorney to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds Nwoye had not complied with discovery orders; her attorney also filed a motion for sanctions. Nwoye didn't respond until weeks later and explained he had a death in the family so he couldn't comply with the discovery schedule. He failed to specify the dates in which he was kept out of work or why he delayed in responding to the motions.

As a result, the District Court imposed sanctions against the plaintiffs for their refusal to comply with discovery requests. The District Court excluded "all plaintiffs' experts, expert reports, and personal medical records from the evidence...except for the 43 pages produced in discovery."

Costello's attorney filed a motion in limine to exclude any evidence of her conviction for driving under the influence; again, Nwoye didn't file a response to the motion. He did, however, file a motion to amend Soltys and Pauch's complaint to add a claim for punitive damages; the District Court denied his motion because he had unduly delayed filing it.

At trial, Costello's attorney made a reference in the opening statement to some evidence being excluded; the court instructed her attorney to comment only on admissible evidence. In closing arguments, Costello's attorney mentioned that no expert witnesses or medical records were introduced, but did not say that the evidence specifically had been excluded.

After deliberation, the jury awarded a $10,000 verdict for Soltys and $5,000 for Pauch. Nwoye made a motion for a new trial based on the denial of the court to add for the allowance of punitive damages and Costello's attorney's statements during opening and closing arguments. The District Court lamented the amounts were "unfair" and "inadequate," but denied the motion.

Unfortunately for Soltys and Pauch, Nwoye is the reason for their low jury award and sanctions, wrote Judge Michael Kanne. This appeal should be about whether punitive damages are considered "special damages" which must be specified in a complaint, however, Nwoye never raised this issue so the 7th Circuit will only consider whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint.

The District Court based its denial on the long delay by Nwoye. The attorney could have actually sought to amend the complaint earlier because the plaintiffs alleged in their original complaint that Costello was intoxicated. As far as the 7th Circuit can tell, Nwoye seemed to have failed to act with diligence and inadvertently failed to address everything in the original complaint.

Regarding Costello's attorney's statements during opening and closing arguments, Judge Kanne wrote that the court assumes that juries follow the instructions given to them by the court and the District Court told the jury to refrain from treating the testimony of the attorney as evidence and to avoid drawing inferences from sustained objections. Therefore, Soltys and Pauch were not entitled to a new trial.

Judge Kanne wrote the outcome of this case seems unfortunate, given the serious injuries sustained by the plaintiffs and the lack of financial award the jury granted. They were denied proper relief because their attorney did not comply with discovery orders and didn't raise valid legal questions that likely would have led to adequate relief.

"As the district court noted, 'any blame lies with the plaintiffs' attorney.' If Soltys and Pauch have any hope of securing additional relief, they must look to Benjamin Nwoye," he wrote.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT