Jentz v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 3:2010cv00474 - Document 286 (S.D. Ill. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER denying 195 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 4/16/12. (caa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jentz v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. Doc. 286 I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DI STRI CT OF I LLI NOI S JOHN W. JENTZ; JUSTI N BECKER ) and AMBER BECKER; and ROBERT ) SCHMI DT, ) ) Plaint iffs, ) ) v. ) ) CONAGRA FOODS, I NC., et al., ) ) Defendant s. ) Case No. 10- cv- 0474- MJR- PMF M EM ORAN D UM AN D ORD ER REAGAN, Dist r ict Judge: A. I nt r oduct ion Pursuant t o Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12( c) and 56, Defendant , West Side Salvage, I nc., m oves for j udgm ent on t he pleadings and for sum m ary j udgm ent on t hird- part y claim s and cross- claim s assert ed by ConAgra Foods, I nc., for com m on law indem nit y and breach of cont ract ( Doc. 195) . West Side subm it s t hat ConAgra is t rying t o pass t he buck for it s neglect of it s facilit ies and for it s policies of placing profit s ahead of safet y . West Side cont ends t hat ConAgra at t em pt s t o deflect blam e by filing a t hirdpart y com plaint and cross- claim against West Side, a sm all cont ract or unt im ely ret ained by ConAgra t o address t he det eriorat ing bin cont ent s. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Grounds for j udgm ent on t he pleadings or sum m ary j udgm ent assert ed by West Side are t hreefold: ( 1) ConAgra cannot m aint ain it s claim s for “ com m on law indem nificat ion” because I llinois law has long abolished such causes of act ion absent a specific “ pre- t ort relat ionship” t hat does not exist in t his case; ( 2) ConAgra’s claim for breach of cont ract fails as a m at t er of law because no cont ract exist ed at t he t im e of t he accident ; and ( 3) even if West Side had a cont ract wit h ConAgra, sum m ary j udgm ent is appropriat e on t hose allegat ions regarding indem nit y because such claim s are not recognized under I llinois law. On March 29, 2012, t he Court denied on t he record and in det ail ConAgra’s m ot ion for sum m ary j udgm ent as t o Third- Part y Defendant West Side Salvage, I nc.’s, Waiver of t he Prot ect ion under Kot ecki v. Cyclops ( Doc. 186) . The Court found t hat “ t here is a genuine issue of m at erial fact as t o whet her t he April cont ract was int ended by t he part ies t o be a fully int egrat ed final expression of t heir agreem ent and govern t heir relat ionship.” Doc. 255, Transcript , 19: 6- 12; see also Doc. 261. Because t he Court has already det erm ined t hat t he validit y of t he April cont ract is a j ury quest ion, t he Court will not address express cont ract ual indem nificat ion – or any alleged cont ract ual breach - herein. ConAgra responds t hat , rat her t han at t em pt ing t o pass t he buck t o a sm all cont ract or, it reasonably relied on West Side’s being t he expert in bin cleaning operat ions and salvage t hat it holds it self out t o be. 2 ConAgra assert s t hat an ext ensive fact ual record evidences a pre- t ort relat ionship bet ween ConAgra and West Side t hat developed over t he course of several weeks, including num erous com m unicat ions and v isit s, during which ConAgra negot iat ed and cont ract ed wit h West Side t o address t he hot bin. Secondly, ConAgra cont ends t hat West Side ent ered int o a cont ract wit h ConAgra and cont r olled t he scope of t he work on t he bin for a full week before t he explosion. Thirdly, according t o ConAgra, a cont ract bet ween t he part ies was execut ed on West Side’s behalf by West Side’s Direct or of Operat ions and, under I llinois law, such cont ract s are valid. Last ly, ConAgra assert s t hat West Side at t em pt s t o conflat e ConAgra’s separat e and dist inct claim s for com m on law indem nit y and breach of cont ract . ConAgra subm it s t hat it s breach of cont ract claim is predicat ed upon m ult iple breaches by West Side – including requirem ent s t hat West Side m aint ain sufficient insurance, require it s sub- cont ract ors t o m aint ain sufficient insurance, assum e responsibilit y for all act ions of t he cont ract or’s and subcont ract or’s em ployees, rem edy all dam ages and loss caused t o t he propert y by t he cont ract or and/ or t he sub- cont ract or – and not solely upon indem nit y. B. St a nda r d of Re vie w Rule 12( c) of t he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a part y t o m ove for j udgm ent on t he pleadings aft er bot h t he com plaint and answer have been filed. A court reviewing m ot ions brought pursuant t o Rule 12( c) em ploys t he sam e st andard t hat it applies when reviewing a m ot ion t o 3 dism iss for failure t o st at e a claim under Rule 12( b) ( 6) . Bucha na n- M oor e v. Count y of M ilw a uk e e , 5 7 0 F.3 d 8 2 4 , 8 2 7 ( 7 t h Cir . 2 0 0 9 ) , cit ing Pisciot t a v. Old N a t . Ba ncor p, 4 9 9 F.3 d 6 2 9 , 6 3 3 ( 7 t h Cir . 2 0 0 7 ) . A 12( b) ( 6) m ot ion challenges t he sufficiency of t he com plaint t o st at e a claim upon which relief can be grant ed. H a llina n v. Fr a t e r na l Or de r of Police of Chica go Lodge N o. 7 , 5 7 0 F.3 d 8 1 1 ( 7 t h Cir . 2 0 0 9 ) . Dism issal is warrant ed under Rule 12( b) ( 6) if t he com plaint fails t o set fort h “ enough fact s t o st at e a claim t o relief t hat is plausible on it s face.” Be ll At la nt ic Cor p. v. Tw om bly, 5 5 0 U.S. 5 4 4 , 5 7 0 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ; EEOC v. Conce nt r a H e a lt h Se r vice s, I nc., 4 9 6 F.3 d 7 7 3 , 7 7 6 ( 7 t h Cir . 2 0 0 7 ) . I n Ta m a yo v. Bla goj e vich, 5 2 6 F.3 d 1 0 7 4 , 1 0 8 3 ( 7 t h Cir . 2 0 0 8 ) , t he Sevent h Circuit em phasized t hat even t hough Be ll At la nt ic “ ret ooled federal pleading st andards” and “ ret ired t he oft - quot ed Conley form ulat ion,” not ice pleading is st ill all t hat is required. “ A plaint iff st ill m ust provide only enough det ail t o give t he defendant fair not ice of what t he claim is and t he gr ounds upon which it rest s and, t hrough his allegat ions, show t hat it is plausible, rat her t han m erely speculat ive, t hat he is ent it led t o relief.” I d. Accor d Pugh v. Tr ibun e Co., 5 2 1 F.3 d 6 8 6 , 6 9 9 ( 7 t h Cir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( “sur viving a Rule 1 2 ( b) ( 6 ) m ot ion r e quir e s m or e t ha n la be ls a nd conclusions”; t he a lle ga t ions “m ust be e nough t o r a ise a r ight t o r e lie f a bove t h e spe cula t ive le v e l”) . 4 Sum m ary j udgm ent is appropriat e where t he pleadings, discovery m at erials, and any affidavit s show t hat t here are no genuine issues of m at erial fact and t hat t he m oving part y is ent it led t o j udgm ent as a m at t er of law. Tur ne r v. The Sa loon, Lt d., 5 9 5 F.3 d 6 7 9 , 6 8 3 ( 7 t h Cir . 2 0 1 0 ) ; Br e ne ise n v. M ot or ola , I nc., 5 1 2 F.3 d 9 7 2 ( 7 t h Cir . 2 0 0 8 ) , cit ing Ce lot e x Cor p. v. Ca t r e t t , 4 7 7 U.S. 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 - 2 3 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . I n ruling on a sum m ary j udgm ent m ot ion, t he dist rict court m ust const rue all fact s in t he light m ost favorable t o, draw all legit im at e inferences in favor of, and resolve all doubt s in favor of t he non- m oving part y. N a t iona l At hle t ic Spor t sw e a r , I nc. v. W e st fie ld I ns. Co., 5 2 8 F.3 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 2 ( 7 t h Cir . 2008) . When t he non- m oving part y bears t he burden of proof, t hough, he m ust dem onst rat e t he exist ence of a genuine fact issue t o defeat sum m ary j udgm ent . Re ge t v. Cit y of La Cr osse , 5 9 5 F.3 d 6 9 1 , 6 9 5 ( 7 t h Cir . 2 0 1 0 ) . To survive sum m ary j udgm ent , t he non- m ovant m ust provide adm issible evidence on which t he j ury or court could find in his favor. Se e M a clin v. SBC Am e r it e ch, 5 2 0 F.3 d 7 8 1 , 7 8 6 ( 7 t h Cir . 2 0 0 8 ) . I n deciding a sum m ary j udgm ent m ot ion, t he court m ay not evaluat e t he weight of t he evidence, j udge t he credibilit y of wit nesses or det erm ine t he t rut h of t he m at t er. The court ’s only role is t o det erm ine whet her t here is a genuine issue of t riable fact . N a t iona l At hle t ic, 5 2 8 5 F.3 d a t 5 1 2 , cit ing D oe v. R.R. D onne lle y & Sons Co., 4 2 F.3 d 4 3 9 , 4 4 3 ( 7 t h Cir . 1 9 9 4 ) . C. Ana lysis Com m on la w in de m nifica t ion I llinois law recognizes t hat a cause of act ion for im plied indem nit y m ust derive from a pre- t ort relat ionship bet ween t he part ies, not m erely t heir involvem ent in a com m on undert aking. Exam ples of pre- t ort relat ionships which support a dut y t o indem nify include lessor/ lessee, em ployer/ em ployee and m ast er/ servant . Se e , e . g., Schulson v. D 'Ancona v. Pfla um , LLC, 8 2 1 N .E.2 d 6 4 3 , 6 4 7 ( I ll.App.Ct . 2 0 0 4 ) ; Ke r schne r v. W e iss & Co., 6 6 7 N .E.2 d 1 3 5 1 , 1 3 5 9 ( I ll.App.Ct . 1996) . The I llinois Court of Appeals explained, [ I ] ndem nificat ion m ay arise from cont r act or from sit uat ions in which a prom ise t o indem nify can be im plied from t he relat ionship am ong t ort feasors. “ The fundam ent al prem ise ... is t hat t he indem nit ee, alt hough wit hout fault in fact , has been subj ect ed t o liabilit y solely because of t he legal relat ionship wit h t he plaint iff or a nondelegable dut y arising out of com m on or st at ut ory law.” Ke r schne r , 6 6 7 N .E.2 d a t 1 3 5 9 , quot ing Fr a ze r v. A.F. M unst e r m a n, 5 2 7 N .E.2 d 1 2 4 8 ( I ll.1 9 8 8 ) . The Unit ed St at es Court of Appeals for t he Sevent h Circuit reit erat ed t his st andard in BCS I ns. Co. v. Guy Ca r pe nt e r & Co., I nc., 4 9 0 F.3 d 5 9 7 ( 7 t h Cir . 2 0 0 7 ) , 6 Under I llinois law , im plied indem nit y is available t o a principal who, t hrough no fault of his own, is held liable for it s agent 's negligent t ort against a t hird part y…. Furt herm ore, im plied indem nit y is applied in sit uat ions where t he indem nit ee, alt hough wit hout fault in fact , has been subj ect ed t o liabilit y solely because of t he legal relat ionship wit h t he plaint iff or a nondelegable dut y arising out of com m on or st at ut ory law. The ult im at e purpose of indem nificat ion is t o shift t he ent ire responsibilit y from t he part y who has been com pelled t o pay t he plaint iff's loss t o anot her who act ually was at fault . 4 9 0 F.3 d a t 6 0 3 ( int e r na l quot a t ion m a r k s a nd cit a t ion om it t e d) ( e m pha sis a dde d in BCS) . Em phasizing t hat t he “ liabilit y m ust be wholly derivat ive” and result solely from t he agent 's act ions, t he Sevent h Circuit held t hat t o prevail on a claim for im plied indem nit y under I llinois law , a plaint iff m ust est ablish t hat t here was a pre- t ort relat ionship bet ween t he indem nit or and t he indem nit ee, and t hat t he indem nit ee was held derivat ively liable for t he act s of t he indem nit or. BCS, 4 9 0 F.3 d a t 6 0 3 . Likewise, in Schulson, 8 2 1 N .E.2 d a t 6 4 7 ( which inv olved a t hird- part y act ion for im plied indem nit y, but not a crossclaim ) , t he I llinois Court of Appeals declared: Under im plied indem nit y, a prom ise t o indem nify will be im plied by law where a blam eless part y is derivat ively liable t o t he plaint iff based on t he part y's relat ionship w it h t he one who act ually caused t he plaint iff's inj ury .... To st at e a cause of act ion for im plied indem nit y, a t hird- part y plaint iff m ust allege: ( 1) a pre- t ort relat ionship bet ween t he t hir d- part y plaint iff and t he t hird- part y defendant , and ( 2) a qualit at ive dist inct ion bet ween t he conduct of t he t hird- part y plaint iff and t he t hird- part y defendant . 7 Clearly t hen, t o est ablish a claim for im plied indem nit y under I llinois law, t he plaint iff ( or t hird- part y plaint iff or crossclaim plaint iff) m ust first dem onst rat e a pre- t ort relat ionship bet ween t he indem nit or and t he indem nit ee. And t o prevail on sum m ary Judgm ent , t he defendant m ust est ablish t hat no such pre- t ort relat ionship exist ed. To m ake t his det erm inat ion, t he Court need not consider whet her a cont ract exist ed bet ween ConAgra and West Side because, under I llinois law, t he lack of a cont ract bet ween t he indem nit or and t he indem nit ee “ is irrelevant t o t he issue of whet her a pre- t ort relat ionship exist ed.” Za j a c v. I llinois H e a t ing & Ve nt ila t ing Co., 4 0 3 N .E.2 d 6 7 4 , 6 7 7 ( I ll.App.Ct . 1 9 8 0 ) ( colle ct ing ca se s) . West Side assert s t hat t he Court should ent er j udgm ent on t he pleadings because ConAgra has not sufficient ly alleged an adequat e pre- t ort relat ionship t hat would give rise t o a dut y t o indem nify. According t o West Side, t his case involves not hing m ore t han a “ com m on undert aking” by West Side and ConAgra t o rem ove t he m at erial from t he hot bin. West Side subm it s t hat ConAgra’s cross- claim against West Side does not allege an em ployer/ em ployee or m ast er/ servant relat ionship but rat her alleges an am orphous “ special relat ionship,” upon which liabilit y cannot be prem ised. Last ly, West Side cont ends t hat ConAgra is not a blam eless part y liable only for t he act s of it s cont ract or, West Side. 8 According t o ConAgra, it s pre- t ort relat ionship wit h West Side began wit hin 24 hours of it s learning of t he issue wit h t he bin. ConAgra cont act ed West Side at t hat t im e and rem ained in cont act unt il it hired West Side t o clean out t he bin. ConAgra assert s t hat it envisioned it s relat ionship wit h West Side as owner/ cont ract or from t he beginning. West Side cont rolled and m anaged t he work on t he bin from t he t im e it arrived at t he sit e and t hat ConAgra’s only involvem ent aft er cont ract ing wit h West Side was undert aken at West Side’s request . Judgm ent on t he pleadings because ConAgra did not specifically allege a part icular relat ionship, such as m ast er/ servant , m ust be denied. Under federal not ice- pleading st andards, t he “ special relat ionship” alleged by ConAgra was sufficient t o put West Side on not ice of it s claim s. I n Count 2, Com m on Law I ndem nificat ion ( West Side) , ConAgra alleges: I f ConAgra is liable t o Plaint iff herein by reason of t he allegat ions set fort h in his First Am ended Com plaint , which liabilit y ConAgra expressly denies, t hen it will only be by virt ue of t he special relat ionship which exist ed bet ween ConAgra and West Side. Doc. 129, p. 6, ¶ 27. Whet her t he “ special relat ionship” bet ween ConAgra and West Side which support s a dut y t o indem nify is m ast er/ servant , owner/ cont ract or or ot her, t his allegat ion is sufficient under t he Ta m a yo st andard of providing “ fair not ice of what t he claim is and t he grounds upon which it rest s” and showing “ t hat it is plausible, rat her t han m erely speculat ive, t hat [ t he plaint iff] is ent it led t o relief.” 5 2 6 F.3 d a t 1 0 8 3 . 9 Furt herm ore, ConAgra has offered sufficient evidence of a pret ort relat ionship such t hat sum m ary j udgm ent is not warrant ed on t his basis. ConAgra has shown a specific relat ionship beyond “ m ere involvem ent in a com m on undert aking.” Set t ing aside t he quest ion of whet her ConAgra and West Side ent ered int o an express agreem ent , West Side was on- sit e on April 19 and undert ook t he t ask of cleaning t he bin on Apr il 20. A business relat ionship had been form ed wit h m ore t han m ere involvem ent in a com m on undert aking. West Side had a prescribed j ob t hat was separat e and dist inct from ConAgra’s responsibilit ies. The suggest ion t hat t hey were act ing “ in com m on” sim ply does not describe t heir relat ionship. Moreover, West Side has elsewhere argued st renuously t hat cont rol of t he proj ect always rem ained in ConAgra’s hands. While t he Court acknowledges t hat “ a foolish consist ency is t he hobgoblin of lit t le m inds,” West Side can scarcely now be heard t o argue t hat t he part ies’ relat ionship was m erely a “ com m on undert aking” rat her t han m ast er/ servant , owner/ cont ract or or t he like. Even discount ing t he cont act s bet ween ConAgra and West Side prior t o West Side’s em ployees arriving at t he sit e of t he accident , West Side’s act ions evidence a pre- t ort relat ionship. Neit her ConAgra nor West Side has subm it t ed any aut horit y ( nor has t he Court discovered any) on t he quest ion of whet her any part icular lengt h of t im e is required t o est ablish a pre- t ort relat ionship, but t he Court is sat isfied t hat t he lengt h of t im e t hat West Side was involved on- sit e was 10 sufficient to est ablish such a relat ionship. I ndeed, West Side adm it s t hat t here was a “ pre- explosion relat ionship" – wit hout defining how t hat differed from a pre- t ort relat ionship, except t o argue t hat t he “ special relat ionship” alleged by ConAgra is insufficient for purposes of com m on law indem nit y ( Doc. 255, Trans. 101: 21- 102: 2) . West Side cannot surm ount t he init ial hurdle of est ablishing t hat no pre- t ort relat ionship exist ed. As a result , t he Court need not also consider whet her t here was a qualit at ive dist inct ion bet ween ConAgra’s conduct and t hat of West Side, se e Schulson, 8 2 1 N .E.2 d a t 6 4 7 , or whet her West Side cannot be held derivat ively liable for t he act s of ConAgra, se e BCS, 4 9 0 F.3 d a t 6 0 3 . Because a pre- t ort relat ionship exist ed bet ween ConAgra and West Side and t hat relat ionship was sufficient ly pled, j udgm ent on t he pleadings or sum m ary j udgm ent on t he issue of com m on law indem nit y is not warrant ed. Whet her t he claim s survive Rule 50 scrut iny is for anot her day. D . Conclusion For t he foregoing reasons, West Side’s m ot ion for j udgm ent on t he pleadings and for sum m ary j udgm ent ( Doc. 195) is D EN I ED . I T I S SO ORDERED. DATED t his 16t h day of April, 2012 11 s/ Michael J. Reagan MI CHAEL J. REAGAN Unit ed St at es Dist r ict Judge 12
]]>
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.
