Larry Oruta v. Continental Air Transport Comp ( 2018 )


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  •                                 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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
    Submitted August 3, 2018*
    Decided August 9, 2018
    Before
    FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
    MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
    DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
    No. 17-3263                                                          Appeal from the United
    States District Court for
    LARRY ORUTA,
    the Northern District of
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    Illinois, Eastern Division.
    v.
    No. 17 C 6072
    CONTINENTAL AIR TRANSPORT COMPANY,                                   Gary Feinerman, Judge.
    INCORPORATED, et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Order
    The district court dismissed this suit on the ground that the claims (to the
    extent the judge could fathom them) duplicated those that Oruta had litigated
    and lost in Oruta v. Continental Air Transport, No. 17 C 3039 (N.D. Ill.), a case then
    on appeal to this court. The decision in the first suit since has been
    affirmed. Oruta v. Continental Air Transport, No. 17-2107 (7th Cir. Oct. 24, 2017)
    *   This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b).
    No. 17-3263                                                                  Page 2
    (nonprecedential decision). We must decide the appeal in this apparently
    duplicative suit.
    Oruta’s brief does not contend that the current suit differs in any material
    respect from the previous one—and the previous suit was itself an attempt to
    relitigate matters that Oruta had fully litigated and lost in state court. His
    appellate brief ignores both the district court’s reasoning and our decision of last
    year. This is an unacceptable approach to litigation. Oruta surely expects his
    adversaries to abide by adverse decisions. He must do likewise. A never-say-die
    approach is frivolous, vexatious, and sanctionable. See, e.g., Homola v. McNamara,
    
    59 F.3d 647
    (7th Cir. 1995).
    The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Oruta has 14 days to show
    cause why he should not be penalized for filing this frivolous appeal.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-3263

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 8/9/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/10/2018