Larry Oruta v. Continental Air Transport Comp, No. 17-3263 (7th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. LARRY ORUTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL AIR TRANSPORT COMPANY, INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 17 C 6072 Gary Feinerman, Judge. 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 No. 17-3263 Page 2 (nonprecedential decision).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.
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.
