John Chwarzynski v. Robert Tebbens , 355 F. App'x 961 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                          NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
    To be cited only in accordance with
    Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Argued September 21, 2009
    Decided December 14, 2009
    Before
    RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
    DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
    JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge
    No. 09-1050
    JOHN W. CHWARZYNSKI,                               Appeal from the United States District
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                          Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
    Eastern Division.
    v.
    No. 07 C 2102
    ROBERT TEBBENS, et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.                         Ronald A. Guzman,
    Judge.
    ORDER
    On April 16, 2007, John Chwarzynski, then-President of Chicago Fire Fighters Union
    Local 2 (the “Union”), filed suit on behalf of the Union against ten executive board
    members (collectively the ”Local defendants”) and the International Association of Fire
    Fighters and four of its officers (collectively the “International defendants”) for alleged
    violations of RICO, federal labor laws, the Chicago false claims act, and state tort law.
    These charges fall into two principal classes of allegations: that the Local defendants
    defrauded the City and the Union by requesting salary and expenses for activities they
    never intended to complete, and that Local and International defendants conspired to
    No. 09-1050                                                                              Page 2
    prosecute false disciplinary charges against Chwarzynski while failing to prosecute
    legitimate charges against Local defendant Tebbens to cover up their fraud.
    Early in the litigation, the defendants and the district court both told Chwarzynski
    that the suit could not be filed in the name of the Union and that most of the claims
    asserted were legally unfounded. In the face of the court’s advice, Chwarzynski soldiered
    on for more than eight months (eventually substituting himself as sole plaintiff), until he
    finally dismissed the action voluntarily in December 2007. In response to a motion by the
    defendants, the district court imposed sanctions in the amount of $15,342.25 jointly and
    severally against Chwarzynski and his attorney, James Maher, under FED. R. C IV. P. 11 and
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1927
    .
    Chwarzynski appealed the sanctions order to this court, but Maher did not. On
    March 17, 2009, this court issued an order confirming that the appeal is limited to a review
    of the sanctions order against plaintiff Chwarzynski only. Had attorney Maher wanted to
    appeal the sanctions order against him, he would have had to file his own notice of appeal.
    Since Maher did not file a notice of appeal, the defendants proceed to collect the full
    $15,324.25 fine from Liberty Mutual Surety, which paid on a bond that it had issued on
    Maher’s behalf.
    A case is moot “when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a
    legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Powell v. McCormack, 
    395 U.S. 486
    , 496 (1969).
    See United States v. Balint, 
    201 F.3d 928
    , 936 (7th Cir. 2000) (finding that the payment of
    restitution by some jointly and severally liable defendants rendered moot the appeal of
    other jointly and severally liable defendants challenging the order for restitution). With the
    fine paid, Chwarzynski’s monetary interest in this appeal disappeared. And this court has
    repeatedly held that it is appropriate to limit appeals of sanctions orders to situations
    involving monetary sanctions only. E.g., Seymour v. Hug, 
    485 F.3d 926
    , 929 (7th Cir. 2007).
    Even if this court could rule in favor of Chwarzynski, he would have no cognizable interest
    in the outcome.
    In response to a request for supplemental briefing on this issue, Chwarzynski states
    that:
    Mr. Chwarzynski’s interest clearly differs from that of his counsel because if
    Mr. Chwarzynski prevails on this appeal he will personally collect the
    amount of the sanction award in the sum of $15,324.25 from his counsel’s
    malpractice insurance carrier in settlement of his legal malpractice claim
    against his counsel.
    No. 09-1050                                                                            Page 3
    (Citing the Release Agreement between Mr. Chwarzynski and Liberty Mutual Insurance
    Company.) Chwarzynski’s possible malpractice claim against Maher implicates a separate
    dispute between him and his lawyer. A party cannot establish an interest in one case by
    making separate contractual obligations contingent on its outcome. We must therefore
    reject Chwarzynski’s attempt to keep this case alive by reference to a collateral proceeding.
    We note in passing that it is not even clear that Chwarzynski’s success on this appeal
    would trigger the Release Agreement provision, since that agreement requires
    Chwarzynski to overturn the sanctions award and avoid liability for payment of that
    award. But that is of no immediate importance. With the fine fully paid, Chwarzynski no
    longer has any legally cognizable interest in this appeal. We therefore DISMISS it as moot.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-1050

Citation Numbers: 355 F. App'x 961

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/14/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023