Edward Weinhaus v. Natalie Cohen, No. 18-3185 (7th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 16, 2019.
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 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, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATALIE B. COHEN, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 18-CV-02471 Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, 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.
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.
