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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT