Jentz v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 3:2010cv00474 - Document 503 (S.D. Ill. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER denying 402 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law as to the Kotecki waiver. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 8/6/12. (caa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jentz v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. Doc. 503 I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DI STRI CT OF I LLI NOI S JOHN W. JENTZ, PLAI NTI FF, VS. CONAGRA FOODS, I NC. AND WEST SI DE SALVAGE, I NC., DEFENDANTS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 10- CV- 0474- MJR ( Lead case) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 10- CV- 0952- MJR Consolidat ed w it h: JUSTI N AND AMBER BECKER, PLAI NTI FFS, VS. CONAGRA FOODS, I NC., DEFENDANT. Consolidat ed w it h: ROBERT SCHMI DT, PLAI NTI FF, VS. CONAGRA FOODS, I NC. AND WEST SI DE SALVAGE, I NC., DEFENDANTS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 11- CV- 0391- MJR 1 Dockets.Justia.com MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REAGAN, Dist r ict Judge: I. I nt roduct ion A j ury t r ial com m enced in t his consolidat ed act ion on May 8, 2012, and concluded on June 1, 2012. On June 11, t he Court provided t he part ies wit h a draft Judgm ent , allowing t hem unt il June 18 t o obj ect t o t he form of t he Judgm ent ( Doc. 486) . On June 18, Defendant ConAgra Foods, I nc., filed it s Obj ect ion t o t he Court ’s form of Judgm ent ( Doc. 490) . Am ong ConAgra’s proposed am endm ent s was t he addit ion of Paragraph 9: “ Becker – ConAgra vs. West Side t hird Part y Com plaint for Cont ribut ion; Kot ecki waiver .” 1 The Kot ecki issue was first raised on January 20, 2012, when ConAgra m oved for sum m ary j udgm ent on it s t hird- part y com plaint against West Side Salvage, I nc., on t he basis t hat West Side had waived any prot ect ions lim it ing it s liabilit y for cont ribut ion under Kot ecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp., 585 N.E.2d 1023 ( I ll. 1992) . Finding t hat a genuine issue of 1 The paragraph ConAgra seek s t o add t o t he Judgm ent is as follows: Be ck e r - Con Ag r a vs. W e st Side Sa lv a g e , I n c. Th ir d- Pa r t y Com pla in t for Con t r ibu t ion 9. As t o Count I I I ( Cont ribut ion) of ConAgra Foods, I nc.’s Am ended ThirdPart y Com plaint , Doc. 436, j udgm ent is ent er ed in favor of Thir d- Part y Plaint iff ConAgra Foods, I nc., against West Side Salvage, I nc. in t he am ount of: $15,571,600.00 as t o Just in Beck er and $110,000 as t o Am ber Becker . The Court also grant s ConAgra’s Mot ion for Judgm ent as a Mat t er of Law, Doc 402, as t o West Side Salvage, I nc.’s waiver of Kot ecki pr ot ect ion, on which t he Court had previously reserv ed it s ruling, Doc. 403, based on t he j ury’s verdict in favor of ConAgra on it s breach of cont ract claim against West Side Salvage. Doc. 490- 1, p. 3. 2 m at erial fact exist ed as t o whet her t he April 19, 2010 cont ract was fully execut ed and governed t he part ies’ relat ionship, t he Court denied ConAgra’s m ot ion as t o whet her t he cont ract was enforceable and reserved as t o t he Kot ecki waiver ( Doc. 403) . On June 1, t he j ur y found t hat ConAgra had proven t hat t he April 19, 2010 cont ract bet ween ConAgra and West Side was valid and awarded ConAgra $3,000,000.00 in dam ages for propert y dam age. The issues pending before t he Court are ( 1) whet her West Side agreed t o t he indem nificat ion provision in t he cont ract and knowingly bargained away it s Kot ecki prot ect ion; ( 2) whet her ConAgra waived or abandoned it s claim for cont ract ual indem nificat ion; ( 3) whet her I llinois or I owa law should apply t o t he issue; ( 4) whet her t he language of t he indem nificat ion clause const it ut es a Kot ecki waiver; and ( 5) whet her t he j udgm ent should specify t hat liabilit y is j oint and several. II. Discussion A. Whet her West Side agreed t o t he indem nificat ion provision West Side cont ends t hat t here cannot be a finding of waiver because t here is no evidence t hat it knowingly bargained away it s Kot ecki prot ect ion and, in fact , t hat t est im ony est ablished t he opposit e. West Side subm it s t hat Ken Langham t est ified t hat he signed t he cont ract wit hout reading t he t erm s and condit ions and wit hout underst anding w hat he was signing. At t rial, ConAgra quest ioned West Side’s President Gene Schwers for hours wit hout asking a single quest ion about cont ract negot iat ions, 3 execut ion or whet her West Side int ended t o waive t he Kot ecki cap. West Side also assert s t hat t he t est im ony of ConAgra’s cont ract adm inist rat or, Cat hy Rihanek, who st at ed t hat West Side had t o sign t he cont ract t o get paid, shows t hat t here was no bargained- for exchange. Last ly, West Side subm it s t hat ConAgra present ed t he j ury wit h very specific quest ions regarding what West Side was required t o do under t he cont ract but did not ask t he j ury t o decide whet her and t o what ext ent West Side agreed t o t he indem nit y provision. So, in essence, West Side asks t he Court t o st rike t he clause or render it a nullit y. The j ury decided t hat t he Apr il 2010 cont ract was valid and enforceable, so t he Court ’s analysis begins wit h how I llinois court s int erpret a cont ract . Under I llinois law, “ [ a] cont ract m ust be const rued as a whole, viewing each provision in light of t he ot her provisions.” Re se r ve a t W oodst ock , LLC v. Cit y of W oodst ock , 9 5 8 N .E.2 d 1 1 0 0 , 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 , ( I ll.App.Ct . 2 0 1 1 ) , cit ing Thom pson v. Gor don, 9 4 8 N .E.2 d 3 9 ( I ll. 2011) . “ The part ies' int ent is not ascert ained by viewing a clause or provision in isolat ion, or by looking at det ached port ions of t he cont ract .” I d., cit ing Thom pson, 9 4 8 N .E.2 d 3 9 ; H ot Light Br a nds, LLC v. H a r r is Re a lt y, I nc., 9 1 2 N .E.2 d 2 5 8 ( I ll.App.Ct . 2 0 0 9 ) ( a n a gr e e m e nt is t o be int e r pr e t e d a s a w hole ; w e sh ould give m e a nin g a nd e ffe ct t o e ve r y pr ovision w he n possible , a nd w e 4 w ill not int e r pr e t t he a gr e e m e nt in a w a y t ha t w ould nullify pr ovisions or w ould r e nde r t he m m e a ningle ss) . Or, sum m ing up succinct ly, cont ract int erpret at ion “ is not a sm orgasbord at which you t ake what you like and leave what does not appeal t o your t ast es.” W e lls Fa r go Funding v. D r a pe r & Kr a m e r M or t g. Cor p., 6 0 8 F.Supp.2 d 9 8 1 , 9 8 7 ( N .D .I ll. 2 0 0 9 ) . As required by I llinois law and t he basic principles of cont ract int erpret at ion, t he Court m ust give full m eaning and effect t o every provision of t he April 2010 cont ract and m ay not int erpret t he cont ract in a m anner t hat would nullify a provision. I n short , t he indem nificat ion clause is valid and enforceable. B. Whet her Con Agra waived or abandoned it s claim for cont r act ual indem nificat ion West Side assert s t hat by not present ing evidence and not asking t he j ury t o decide t he fact ual issue of whet her and t o what ext ent West Side agreed t o indem nify ConAgr a, ConAgra waived it s opport unit y t o have t he legal issue of whet her West Side waived it s Kot ecki prot ect ion decided by t his Court as a m at t er of law. The undersigned Judge agrees t hat ConAgra waived or abandoned it s claim for cont ract ual indem nificat ion. But it does not follow t hat ConAgra waived it s claim t hat West Side waived it s Kot ecki prot ect ion. That is discussed below. During ConAgra’s lengt hy exam inat ion of Schwers, it did not inquire about cont ract negot iat ion, cont ract execut ion or t he issue of indem nit y and t he Kot ecki cap. The quest ions direct ed t o t he j ury for it s 5 verdict did not include any quest ion regarding whet her West Side was required t o indem nify ConAgra. The j ury found t hat West Side was required under t he cont ract t o ( a) rem ove all pellet s from bin 15, using vacuum , bin whip and ent r y as needed; ( b) em ploy on t he work only workers skilled in t he t ask assigned t o him ; ( c) be solely responsible for all const ruct ion m eans, m et hods, t echniques, sequences and procedures and for coordinat ing all port ions of t he work; ( d) be r esponsible for t he act s and om issions of all his em ployees and all subcont ract ors, t heir agent s and em ployees and all ot her persons perform ing any of t he work under a cont r act wit h West Side Salvage; ( e) be responsible for init iat ing, m aint aining and supervising all safet y precaut ions and progr am s in connect ion wit h t he work, com ply w it h all applicable laws, ordinances, rules, regulat ions and orders of any public aut horit y having j urisdict ion for t he safet y of persons or propert y or t o prot ect t hem from dam age, inj ur y or loss; and ( f) rem edy wit hout cost , charge or expense t o ConAgra all dam age or loss t o any propert y caused in whole or in part by West Side Salvage, any subcont ract or or anyone direct ly or indirect ly em ployed by any of t hem , or by anyone for whose act s any of t hem m ay be liable. ConAgra present ed no evidence on indem nificat ion and did not ask t he j ury t o decide t he fact ual issue t hrough an offered j ury inst ruct ion. As a result , ConAgra waived or abandoned it s claim for cont ract ual indem nificat ion, w hich was included in Count I V of ConAgra's Second Am ended Cross- claim against West Side ( Doc. 435) . 6 C. Whet her I llinois or I owa law governs Just in Becker’s workers’ com pensat ion claim West Side subm it s t hat I owa law arguably applies t o t he issue before t he Court . Cit ing Moore v. Wausau Club v.Dick Judson Orchest ras, I nc., 777 F.Supp. 619, 621 ( N.D.I ll. 1991) , West Side cont ends t hat t he place of t he em ployer’s benefit s coverage is t he single m ost im port ant fact or in det erm ining which st at e’s workers’ com pensat ion law t o apply. Under I owa law, ConAgra’s cont ribut ion claim fails because cont ribut ion claim s by a t hird- part y t ort feasor against a plaint iff’s em ployer are not perm it t ed. According t o West Side, since Becker’s workers’ com pensat ion coverage is based in I owa, I owa law m ust be applied t o his workers’ com pensat ion claim . Even if West Side were correct , it s argum ent fails because it did not raise t he issue in a t im ely m anner and has repeat edly invoked I llinois law in defending against ConAgra’s t hird- part y claim . West Side did not raise t his defense in it s Answer t o ConAgra’s Com plaint or t o it s Second Am ended Com plaint ( Docs. 134, 160) . I n West Side’s response t o ConAgra’s m ot ion for sum m ary j udgm ent ( Doc. 186) , it invoked t he prot ect ion of I llinois law under Kot ecki and m ade no m ent ion of I owa law. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require part ies t o raise all affirm at ive defenses at t he pleadings st age. “ Failure t o plead an affirm at ive defense m ay result in waiver of t hat defense.” Fe d.Appx . 6 0 2 , 6 0 3 - 0 4 ( 7 t h Cir . 2 0 0 7 ) . 7 For t - Gr ee r v. D a le y, 2 2 8 “ The person served wit h t he sum m ons and t hird- part y com plaint … m ust assert any defense against t he t hird- part y plaint iff's claim under Rule 12; …” Fe d. R. Civ. P. 1 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A) . Wit h cert ain except ions not relevant here, “ [ e] very defense t o a claim for relief in any pleading m ust be assert ed in t he responsive pleading if one is required." Fe d. R. Civ. P. 1 2 ( b) . While t he Court m ay allow a defense t o be assert ed lat er and give t he plaint iff t he opport unit y t o respond, For t Gr e e r , 2 2 8 Fe d.Appx . a t 6 0 4 , in t his inst ance where t he act ion has been t ried t o verdict , it is far t oo lat e t o allow West Side t o invoke I owa law. West Side has t hr oughout t he case inconsist ent ly t aken t he posit ion t hat I llinois law applies, part icularly in relying on Kot ecki. 2 “ ‘I t is fundam ent al t o our adversarial process t hat a part y w aives his right t o com plain of an error where t o do so is inconsist ent wit h t he posit ion t aken by t he part y in an earlier court proceeding.’” Sba r bor o v. Volla la , 9 1 1 N .E.2 d 5 5 3 , 5 6 4 ( I ll.App.Ct . 2 0 0 9 ) , quot ing M cM a t h v. Ka t holi, 7 3 0 N .E.2 d 1 ( I ll. 2 0 0 0 ) , quot ing Aut on v. Loga n La ndfill, I nc., 4 7 5 N .E.2 d 8 1 7 ( I ll. 1 9 8 4 ) . I t would be m anifest ly unfair and prej udicial for t he Court 2 I n West Side’s response t o ConAgra’s m ot ion for sum m ary j udgm ent on Kot ecki grounds ( Doc. 236) , it argued, I llinois has t he m ost significant cont act s in t his case for purposes of det erm ining t hat t here was no valid and enforceable cont ract bet ween t he part ies on t he dat e of t he accident in t his case…. The Work Order Cont ract form does not cont ain a choice of law provision. That being said, t he subj ect m at t er of t he form ( bin 15) was locat ed in I llinois and t he work called for was t o be perform ed in I llinois. Therefore, I llinois law applies t o t he cont ract disput e bet ween ConAgra and West Side. 8 t o allow West Side t o opt for applicat ion of I owa law now sim ply because it fears t hat it s posit ion under I llinois law is less t enable. I n sum , West Side cannot avoid t he consequences of it s own act ions. West Side waived it s right t o raise a choice- of- laws defense and is barred from raising it now. The quest ion t hat r em ains is w het her t he cont ract ual provision in t his case operat ed as a waiver of t he Kot ecki cap on West Side’s cont ribut ion liabilit y. Se e Licca r di v. St olt Te r m ina ls, I nc., 6 8 7 N .E.2 d 9 6 8 , 9 7 1 ( I ll. 1 9 9 7 ) D. Whet her West Side waived it s Kot ecki prot ect ion The Court arrives at t his issue t hrough t he som ewhat circuit ous rout e laid out in I llinois st at ut e and case law. Plaint iff Just in Becker, a West Side em ployee, cannot sue West Side direct ly. His exclusive rem edy is pursuant t o t he I llinois Workers’ Com pensat ion Act . 8 2 0 I LCS 3 0 5 / 1 1 . However, where a part y ot her t han an em ployer causes an em ployee t o be inj ured at work t he em ployee can sue t he t hird part y for dam ages. Se e 8 2 0 I ll. Com p. St a t . 3 0 5 / 5 ( b) . The t hird part y can in t urn seek cont ribut ion from t he em ployer, t hereby bringing t he em ployer int o t he suit . I d. I n Kot ecki, t he I llinois Suprem e Court ruled t hat a t hird- part y defendant em ployer's cont ribut ion liabilit y is lim it ed t o t he am ount of t he em ployer's workers' com pensat ion liabilit y. Kot e ck i, 5 8 5 N .E.2 d a t 1 0 2 7 2 8 . Kot ecki was t he Court ’s at t em pt “ t o balance t he com pet ing int erest s of 9 t he em ployer, as a part icipant in t he workers' com pensat ion syst em , and t he equit able int erest s of t he t hird- part y defendant in not being forced t o pay m ore t han it s est ablished fault .” Vir ginia Sur . Co., I nc. v. N or t he r n I ns. Com pa ny of N e w Yor k , 8 6 6 N .E.2 d 1 4 9 , 1 5 4 ( I ll. 2 0 0 7 ) , cit ing Kot e ck i, 5 8 5 N .E.2 d 1 0 2 3 . An em ployer m ay cont ract ually waive t he cap on it s cont ribut ion liabilit y, result ing in t he em ployer becom ing liable for it s full pro rat a share of cont ribut ion. Br a ye v. Ar che r - D a nie ls- M idla nd Co., 6 7 6 N .E.2 d 1 2 9 5 , 1 3 0 0 ( I ll. 1 9 9 7 ) ; Est a t e of W illis v. Kife r ba u m Const . Cor p., 8 3 0 N .E.2 d 6 3 6 , 6 4 1 ( I ll.App.Ct . 2 0 0 5 ) . “ I n essence, a part y who agrees t o waive Kot ecki as an affirm at ive defense volunt ar ily assum es cont ribut ion liabilit y Com pensat ion Act .” in excess of t he lim it at ions provided under t he W illis, 8 3 0 N .E.2 d a t 6 4 1 , cit in g Chr ist y– Folt z , I nc. v. Sa fe t y M ut ua l Ca sua lt y Cor p., 7 2 2 N .E.2 d 1 2 0 6 ( I ll. 2 0 0 0 ) . The Court is unpersuaded by ConAgr a’s reliance on Braye for est ablishing t hat t he indem nificat ion clause in t he ConAgra/ West Side cont ract waived Kot ecki prot ect ion. As West Side cont ends, t he I llinois Suprem e Court ’s holding is lim it ed t o answering t wo cert ified quest ions: ( 1) whet her t he liabilit y cap provided t o an em ployer who has paid workers’ com pensat ion benefit s m ay be waived by cont ract ; and ( 2) whet her t he alleged cont ract ual language at issue in t hat case operat ed as a waiver of t he Kot ecki cap or was void for being in violat ion of t he Const ruct ion 10 Cont ract I ndem nificat ion for Negligence Act . Br a ye , 6 7 6 N .E.2 d a t 1 2 9 7 . The Court did not det erm ine whet her t he language of t he indem nificat ion provision act ually waived Kot ecki prot ect ion. Rat her, as t he Court sum m arized, [ W] e hold t hat an em ployer m ay ent er int o a valid and enforceable cont ract ual agreem ent t o waive t he Kot ecki lim it at ion on t he em ployer’s cont ribut ion liabilit y. We furt her hold t hat t he purchase order in t he case at bar is not void as being violat ive of t he I ndem nificat ion Act . I d. a t 1 3 0 4 . Because t he I llinois Court did not decide whet her t he cont ract ual language at issue operat ed as a waiver of t he Kot ecki cap, Braye does not aid t his Court ’s analysis of whet her t he indem nificat ion clause in t he ConAgra/ West Side cont ract operat ed as a waiver. The Court inst ead t urns t o t he Willis case for guidance on what const it ut es a waiver of Kot ecki prot ect ion under I llinois law. There, t he I llinois Appeals Court exam ined t wo indem nificat ion clauses. The clause which t he court found did not const it ut e a valid waiver, paragraph 7, reads as follows: The Subcont ract or agrees t o assum e ent ire responsibilit y and liabilit y, t o t he fullest ext ent perm it t ed by law, for all dam ages or inj ury t o all persons, whet her em ployees or ot herwise, and t o all propert y, arising out of it , result ing from or in any m anner connect ed wit h, t he execut ion of t he work provided for in t his Subcont ract or [ sic] … and t he Subcont ract or, t o t he fullest ext ent perm it t ed by law, agrees t o indem nify and save har m less t he Cont ract or … from all such claim s including, wit hout lim it ing t he generalit y of t he foregoing, claim s for which t he Cont ract or m ay be or m ay be claim ed t o be, liable and legal fees and 11 disbursem ent s paid or incurred t o enforce t he provisions of t his paragraph…. W illis, 8 3 0 N .E.2 d a t 6 3 9 . The clauses which t he court found did const it ut e a waiver, paragraphs 11.11.1 and 11.11.2, read as follows: [ T] he Subcont ract or shall indem nify and hold harm less t he Owner, t he Archit ect and t he Cont ract or and all of t heir agent s and em ployees from and against all claim s, dam ages, losses, and expenses … arising out of or result ing from t he perform ance of t he Subcont ract or's work under t his Subcont ract , provided t hat any such claim … is at t ribut able t o bodily inj ury … t o t he ext ent caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or om ission of t he Subcont ract or of anyone direct ly or indirect ly em ployed by him or anyone for whose act s he m ay be liable, regardless of whet her it is caused in part by a par t y indem nified hereunder. I n any and all claim s against t he Ow ner, t he Archit ect , or t he Cont ract or or any of t heir agent s or em ployees by any em ployee of t he Subcont ract or, anyone direct ly or indirect ly em ployed by him or anyone for whose act s he m ay be liable, t he indem nificat ion obligat ion under t his Paragraph 11.11 shall not be lim it ed in any way by any lim it at ion on t he am ount or t ype of dam ages, com pensat ion or benefit s payable by or for t he Subcont ract or under workers' or workm en's com pensat ion act s, disabilit y benefit act s or ot her em ployee benefit act s. W illis, 8 3 0 N .E.2 d a t 6 3 9 - 4 0 . I n dist inguishing t he provisions, t he appellat e court not ed t hat in paragraph 11.11.1 of t he cont ract , t he subcont ract or agreed t o indem nify t he cont ract or “ against claim s of inj ury ‘caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or om ission of t he Subcont ract or.’” I d. a t 6 4 2 . Paragraph 11.11.2 added t hat “ ’t he indem nificat ion obligat ion under t his Paragraph 12 11.11 shall not be lim it ed in any way by any lim it at ion on t he am ount or t ype of dam ages, com pensat ion or benefit s payable by or for t he Subcont ract or under … workm en's com pensat ion act s.’” The court observed t hat t he words “ ’shall not be lim it ed,’ or ot her phrases purport ing t o indem nify eit her part y for it s own negligence” did not appear in paragraph 7 as t hey did in t he indem nificat ion pr ovisions in paragraphs 11.11.1 and 11.11.2. Se e id. I n t he current proceeding, t he Work Order Cont ract provides for indem nificat ion as follows: 9. I N D EM N I TY: Cont ract or shall indem nify and save harm less Owner, it s agent s, servant s, em ployees or represent at ives against all losses and all claim s, dem ands, act ions, suit s, paym ent s and j udgm ent s arising from propert y dam age, personal inj ury or ot herwise brought or recovered against Owner, it s agent s, servant s, em ployees or represent at ives by reason of any act or om ission of t he Cont ract or, it s agent s, servant s, em ployees or represent at ives in t he execut ion or guarding of work, including any and all expenses, legal or ot herwise incurred by Owner, it s agent s, servant s, em ployees or represent at ives in t he defense of any suit or claim . The indem nit y clause in t he ConAgra/ West Side cont ract closely t racks t he language of paragr aph 7 in Willis, w it h t he except ion of t he phrase “ t o t he fullest ext ent perm it t ed by law .” ConAgra/ West Side cont ract What t he Court does not find in t he is t he express language indicat ing t hat indem nificat ion “ shall not be lim it ed” or ot her phrases by which West Side agrees t o indem nify ConAgra for ConAgra’s own negligence. 13 There is cert ainly no explicit reference t o benefit s under t he workers’ com pensat ion act , which t he cour t ident ified as am ong t he pivot al phrases in paragraph 11.11.2. I n sum , t he language of paragraph 9 of t he ConAgra/ West Side cont ract is t oo broad t o const it ut e a waiver of West Side’s Kot ecki prot ect ion. West Side did not waive it s Kot ecki prot ect ion because t he provision does not cont ain sufficient specific cont ract ual language necessary t o const it ut e a waiver. E. Whet her t he j udgm ent should specify j oint and several liabilit y ConAgra and Plaint iffs propose t hat t he Court add t he t erm “ j oint and several liabilit y ” t o t he Judgm ent . This proposal goes beyond t he j ury’s verdict and seeks t o add legal conclusions regarding sat isfact ion of t he j udgm ent s, a st ep which is bot h unsound and unnecessary. draft j udgm ent accurat ely reflect s t he j ury verdict and The Court ’s t he legal responsibilit y of each part y based on t he j ury’s det erm inat ion of com parat ive fault . Not hing else is necessary. III. Conclusion For t he foregoing reasons, t he Court D EN I ES ConAgra’s m ot ion for j udgm ent as a m at t er of law as t o t he Kot ecki waiver ( Doc. 402) . This final issue having been resolved and t he part ies’ obj ect ions considered, t he Court will ent er Judgm ent prom pt ly. I T I S SO ORDERED. 14 DATED t his 6t h day of August , 2012 s/ Michael J. Reagan_ MI CHAEL J. REAGAN Unit ed St at es Dist r ict Judge 15
]]>
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.
