Edward Weinhaus v. Natalie Cohen ( 2019 )


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  •                         NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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
    September 23, 2019
    Before
    JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
    DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
    DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
    No. 18-3185
    EDWARD A. WEINHAUS,                               Appeal from the United States District
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                          Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
    Eastern Division.
    v.                                          No. 18-CV-02471
    NATALIE B. COHEN, et al.,                         Rebecca R. Pallmeyer,
    Defendants-Appellees.                         Chief Judge.
    ORDER
    On July 16, 2019, this court affirmed the judgment of the district court and
    determined that the appeal was frivolous. Weinhaus v. Cohen, 773 F. App’x 314, 317 (7th
    Cir. 2019). Because appellant Edward Weinhaus’s appeal satisfied the standard for
    sanctions under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, we granted the
    appellees’ motion for sanctions and ordered the appellees to file with the court a
    statement of the attorneys’ fees and other expenses reasonably incurred in defending
    the appeal. They did so, and Weinhaus responded. We have reviewed the parties’
    submissions, and we conclude that, under a state-court order, Weinhaus has already
    paid any fees that might be awarded under Rule 38. In re Weinhaus, No. 12 D 008800 (Ill.
    Cir. Ct. Apr. 8, 2019) (ordering appellant to pay $23,500 in appellee’s attorney’s fees
    under 750 ILCS 5/508); see also Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 
    854 F.3d 626
    ,
    No. 18-3185                                                                            Page 2
    631 (9th Cir. 2017); Sun-Tek Indus., Inc. v. Kennedy Sky-Lites, Inc., 
    865 F.2d 1254
    , 1255
    (Fed. Cir. 1989). We therefore award no additional fees under Rule 38.
    Weinhaus represented to this court that he waives his right to appeal the state
    court’s April 8, 2019, fee award. We have relied on that representation in deciding not to
    award any further fees pursuant to Rule 38. See New Hampshire v. Maine, 
    532 U.S. 742
    ,
    750–51 (2001); Seymour v. Collins, 
    39 N.E.3d 961
    , 973 (Ill. 2015). We also direct the clerk
    of this court to forward a copy of this order and our July 16 order to the State Bar of
    California.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-3185

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 9/23/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/23/2019