Charles Adams v. Raintree Vacation, No. 11-3576 (7th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 20, 2012.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 January 22, 2013 Before               RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge                                                      MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge  ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge No. 11 3576 CHARLES ADAMS, et al.,           Plaintiffs Appellants,           v. RAINTREE VACATION EXCHANGE, LLC, et al.,           Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 10 C 3264 Virginia M. Kendall, Judge. O R D E R On  January  3,  2013,  plaintiffs appellants  filed  a  petition  for  rehearing  en  banc.    All  of  the judges on the original panel have voted to deny the petition, and none of the active judges has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition is therefore DENIED. The  petition  for  rehearing  is  based  on  speculation  about  the  contents  of  a  sealed  2006 settlement  agreement  between  Starwood  and  Raintree  that  was  submitted  in  camera  to  the district  judge,  who  correctly  ruled  that  it  was  irrelevant  to  the  fraud.    Our  opinion  allows Starwood  to  invoke  the  forum  selection  clause  on  the  basis  of  mutuality.  The  plaintiffs  could invoke it against Starwood, even though Starwood was not a party to the contract containing  No. 11 3576                                                                                                                              Page  2 the  clause,  because  they  allege  that  it  was  conspiring  with  Raintree,  whose  subsidiary  signed the contract containing the clause; mutuality means that Starwood can invoke it against them. The  plaintiffs   counsel  stated  at  oral  argument  that  Starwood  concedes  that  a  settlement  with Raintree severed all ties between the two companies, and further stated that Starwood cannot invoke mutuality because  as of the time of the filing of this lawsuit Starwood was a complete stranger to the original project and also a complete stranger to the company or any later entity [i.e.,  Raintree]  that  supposedly  owned  or  acquired  the  forum  clause.     But  the  premise  of  the suit  is  that  Starwood  conspired  with  Raintree  to  defraud  them  and  that  the  contracts  that  the plaintiffs  signed  in  2004  with  an  alleged  puppet  of  Raintree  were  instruments  of  the  fraud. Whether  Starwood s  and  Raintree s  alleged  conspiratorial  venture  subsequently  went  south, leading them to sever ties with each other in 2006, is irrelevant.  We note finally that in MB Financial, N.A. v. Stevens, 678 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 2012), we upheld sanctions  against  David  Novoselsky,  the  plaintiffs   lawyer  in  this  case,  and  we  take  this opportunity to remind him that frivolous arguments are sanctionable.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.