McDonald V. CETIS, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF MArNE COURT CUMBERl.ANLl, ss BUSINESS AND CONSUMER Location: Pmlland Docker No.: BCD-CV-13-82 J r1MH-Cit!IH hlif--/'t JOl-IN E MCDONALD, JR. ) ) Plninliff, I ) I ) CET!S. INC FINDINGS AND OlWF:R FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ) ) ) Defeoldatl(. ) ) I l. INTRODIJCTION This mn!ler came on fm trial wlthont a jmy on Angust 5, 20 14. The parties tiled post-trial submissions, the last of which was received by the Court on Octo her t 4, 20 14. The Co1111 h~s reviewed the evitlence adonilte<l ~! tria I and received pursuant to Ihe Co\!l"t's Order Rn: Posi-T•·inl Pl"Oceetlings d"te<l AligllSl 7, 2014. The Cmrttlms considered The parties" wt·ittcn a,.gmnenls, and is_qlle• Ihe followi1og findings and Orcter fm enll")' of Jmlgment. II. I'ROCEDU_RAL BACKGROUND The jWiies have rcfcored to the two legal disp\ltes belween the pal!ies as "McDoowld I" and "McDouaid ll." The Court will do the snme. MeDouald I involved a claim brought by John E. McDonald Hgailt'l Schec, Inc. (Celis' rormcr nnme] iu March o ~, 201 0. I\ illill ~1\y invol ved a d a·,lll lhat S citec owed Mt. YkDonald comm"oss"l0118 tnvo:ving Tetedex, a company thM had b~en n~qwred by Scitec. All claims regarditlg Telerlex were resolved in fn 1·or of Sc1 we before trial. Claillls b1"011gbt in rompl~int lll~<le inchoded ;~n ~n Ameu1kd tlllegation that Scitcc owed '4.. McDonnld commissioll" for sales Ly SGitcc to Avnya. The claim mose when Scitcc. upon being s\oed regardllig Tckdcx, lcominated its commissioH ngtc~menl with Mr. McDOil~ld regw·ding Avaya ealeo. 1hnt dui'm weul ton jury trial befme the Btmit•e'" and CollS\IIllet· Co\lrl, with n jlH"Y finding in Scilec' s favm. The D11siness C011rt deferred noling on other isstles until after the _;ury Irial, and llw verdict and other 1ulillgs were n'ppealed. In M!ly of2013, Ihe Maine Supreme Court vacated thejtlt"}' verdict und held that the commis;ion agreement between tlw pu1 ti"' 1C<JlLircd Sdiec lo pay colllmissiolls L"Cearding /\ vayn concede~ s"l~s even ancr the connnission agreement was lcrminnled. Celis in 1ts Post-Trial Brief tlwt the Law Court's opinion "dcci~cd Mr. McDonald's brench of conloac] claim." (B•·· of Celis 2.) However, on June 20, 2013 the Law Com I iss11ed an amended ~ecision, entitled to relief "ndcr the tos itlwd not Illinoi~ ud!lresse~ ML Md)onald's clahn that he was Sales Representative Act ("!SRI\"), inclmling un nward of exemplary damages and cmmsel fees. The Lnw Court sent the case bncl< lo the Business and ConstllllCl' Court to determine those isstiCS, and on September 20, 20 l 3 Jt~stwe Nivison held that JSRA did apply to Mr McDonald's claims against Scltec in thut l!e was n "s~les represeutativc" within tile mc~ning of tll~l slaMu. AfteJ' ftlll her \Jriefrng, on Januaty 7, 2014, the coml awarded couuRel fees. b11t ~cclincd to awMd exemplnry damages. 1 fn this <lccision, J llsticc Nivison nnted that cotnts whu ha YC illi~l'j)l'ei~d ISHA II ave concl Lided th"t ''(•1)0 •lltomntic mvmd of exemplary dam~gcs is gmuted for evCl"}' -.olotion of:hc /\ct." J"'iallco Inc·. v. Wl>ilingCort>.. 784 N.E.2d 312. 320 (Ill. App. Ci. 2002) (citing Mt~her & A.I'.<OC'.<, l!w v. Qrw/Jiy CabiMI.I', MO "-E.2d 1000 (lll App. Cl 1994)). "llw <:mill found ilwt the s:amlanlrc~uired "w'llfui or W~lli<IIJ cmiduct or vexntio\1,, L"efl"nlto pay'" (Zm•e/1 & Assor., Inc. v. CCA lndu.! .. Inc. 628 N.E.2d I 050, I 052), or fl '·11nding of culpability th~t exceeds bml faith." Maher. 640 N.Ed.2d ~~ 1008 Tile cmnl ruled II was not able to nmke snch a !inding alJont !;citcc's conducttoWa['(]S MJ·. McDomtld. McDonald I! began with the flling ol' n two·COil!lt Complaint alleginr; that Cetis breached II~ commission agreement with Mr. McDonald for failing to pny vost·lrinl comnmsiotts frotn December 5, 20 II fmwanl. In ad(litimt, tiH: Compluinl brought a claim l(ll· cx~mplmy dmnages itnd counoel fee~ W1der lSI\ A. McDonald JJ was filed on October 2'1, 20 I 3, approximately three 111onths before Jitstice Nivi•on isstled the DOW· finn I Ol<icr r~~arding exempl"'y damages and cmmsel fees in McDou~ld l, be fute the post· tl"ial nnd post·Lnw Cotirl clecision commbsions were pnitl OJ. FIND~NGS ~nd n day 2 AND CONCLUSIONS Count l of ~he Comvlnin: alleges breach of contract. The clain, is th~t r.ctis' f,,ilurG to pRy posl·trial of2GI3 constimtcd cont•nct, ami >IS ~ Ccti~ conl!niR~ions inuncdiatcly after the Law Court's dcci.1ion in May bneach of the commission agreement. TI1e agreement is clearly a has conceded 111 its post"lrial mgument, the J.aw Court's dec'"ioll ill McDonald lrcsoivcd the iltcnch of con!mc! cl~i111 m tbm cn,e. That dcctsion ~I so >C!llcd !lie iSR\Ie of Cctis' ongo•ng obligatio" to pay wlllllllssions on Avaya sales. Therdm·e, if Celis did not n1akc tl>ese payment•, 11 wus in breach of its contract to M1 McDonald. "I he ev'dcllcc is dear that Celis hos adnowledged its obiigation to jJH)' the commissions as of ;-----"'"he pot ties sec"' to have worked aut an ncceptal>le armnecntelll for pnyn>em of'"''"" i«im>S 0\\'Cd s'IICC Octo her 2J, 20 I ) with iIs oh.igatiOII ll)lti I months •tfler the Law C0111l's dcc,sion became final, and jiJSI one <lay before the Clmeut l<nvswl was flied Count II, however, is the heat I of Mr McDonald's clai tn, ns ISRA itnposcs time re~uirements for when commissions mttst he paid "f\er terntination of a commis~ion agreement, nml it ami provides for cct taiu rcmcdic< (attorneys fees, co~ts, and \ulllcr em lain circmmlnnces, exemplary dnrnugcs) whe11 the time requimmenls are not met. Un<ler lSRA any conuni;;ions dtte at the time a commissions contmct is tcnninntc<lmusl 11c pa•d within tltlneen ( 13) days of the date 011 which commi.1siom come dtte tmder the agr~emenl, ' Tim Co1111wi II deal firs( with tile isstte of exetnplary datn~ges, followed by a considerot1on of Plaintiffs dem~nd fm• tm award of cotmsel fees. lt has been noted thai JSRA "as \Willen, reqHires ~n uwanl of ~xemplury damugcs m nil instances whe1e a ptiucipal fails to pay comJni""ions due within I) days of termillalion of! be represemnlion agt centent." Leonaal A. Nels<m, Prmlllve Damageo· Under lhc f//inoi,· Sale; Repre,tmlaliw Acl, 8611!. B. J. 622 (1998]. However, courts in lllit>eiH and in otl\C!' j111 isdictiotl> (includin~ Ihis Court) tlmt have had occasion to np]>ly ISRA bnve required rnuch mnre than u simple violation of the stat11te · s time reqttiremMI" in order :o aw~t·d exemplary dalllnb"'"· Mr. McDonald argues Ilia! Cetio llFid no justification in tlelaying p~yn1eut of th~ post-trial th~t 1 ~onrnlissions •tllitd no The Act IS once the Law Cowl tletermincd Ihat Cetis' obi igation to pay ~biigaiiJlllo ~ay any c0mmi»ions until.lanttnry 28, not,, new b;l'i< fnt t;abili!y tl ciOIIH <toHICr 1110 Ac: "IS 2(11~ pm~"tic m the ear!icst, on(") bleach of COlli met clnim' which 1cq1oi '"' a pal tv lu t>lnbt ish first thnl il is elllillcO to commissions under " ''nii~oonllacl. AA Assor:mra.l', Inc v .C'Oil>·So~l. file, 550 Dd. 600,609 ('!"'Cit·. ?.DO~) wh i~h w~s whell t'•e McUml"ld l )lldglnenl becw'le final.; Celis hll·tllet· nt"gtlcs that Mr. McDonald cot1ld lwve, but did not, obtain entry of a fin~ I judgment witilrespect to fewer claims purwm1t to I~ ulc 54{1>)( I ) ~nd there fmc hy Ihe lime the judgment lSS\\C of the appl icubil ity of ISRA, Cet is had n~·end~ wa~ ftnal oJt the paid the commission,;. Mr. McDoL>Rid also mgues lhat Ce(ls' alteumtivc defense .. (hnt the putties we1e wotklug oil n global settlement·· is not supporled by Ihe trial evidence, ~nd that Cells' delay in pnymcnt was acll1ally 1110tivatcd by mtimm or ill willloWal'(( Mr. McDonald Stich that an order for exemplaLJ rl~mages i' req11ircd Jmder !SRA. Justice Nivison Ill his January 2D 14 order denying Mr. McDonald's dCilland for c~cmplmJ di~ptile damages slated that tile pm tics' disp11tc in I hat case was "a legitimate legal over lhe duration of n collllael, which disp11le WtlS ultimately resolved by the lnw Cn\ilt." AI the time Ihe comt came to thnt conch1sion, ~led, :i und the posHtlul ~ommissious MeOoll~ld ll had already bee" owed tllldm· McDoilald II had been puid. In addition, is illl(lOI tan I to 110le Ihut it wus !lot illttil Septcmbn 20, 20! 3 tlmt tile COlirt foun<lthnt M1. Mcnountd was n "s~l<:.• tepresmllative" within the mcnlling of ISRA •11Ch that lte could IHCI'ail on n claim fm exempbry damages in either McDoonld I or McDonnld fl .. depen<lmg on what he collld wove about Celis' condllct. The Plainliff does not seem to be ~tg11ing hct" thnt Cctis <Kd nllything constitnting bad f.1itl1 by mnking ils nrgumcnt to tlte C0\111 that ISIV\ did not apply. Rnthc,·, he seems to atguc :hal despite the facttiW the CO\It'! dtd not make thm finding lllllil Septcmbc1 oi' 20 13, Celis IMI nn ohlig~tioll 110 latet :han the amende(] dcdSJoll 'iomthe Lnw Com1 in Jnne of20l) 10 I'll\' the post-u·ial ~~-~~~~~-- , Justice NOviso" L'llied Oil Septcmlm 20, 20 t 3 tl1~t JSR/1 appt ted •.c 111e parties' ogreemeLtt, b•.•t dtd "d "''"oil tlw Mr. WcDGnald's Jcmond lot o~cmpi"''Y do11'"g" ""d counsel reo• ctrtlil J~llllrtty '1, ~01•1 5 It is clenr to tile Co.ul li0111 the fJI'OCC<Iural history of this c~se, ~s Justic~ Nivi,un fOund 111 McDonnld J, th~l at the time the l.aw Cotat issued its "print: 1013 decisions, thct-c were still lcgitimnte, \lllresolved leg~i disp11tes between tile pmlics, including whether JSRA even ~pplied to Mr McDonald_ M:·. l'VlcDon:!ld cannot really arg11e O(hclWis". Howeve•, Ihal io not the .>arne thing as saying that Celis bad no legal ol>ligation to pay any otll>li1Uding commission" until the jttdgmeJ1( in McDonald beemne final in Jmnmt)' of 20 I~- rmportmttly, Cctis bus conec~c~ that the Law Court's spring 20 13 decisions resolved Mr. McDmmld's !>reach of contrnct clni111. In mlditicm, CoJiis wns on notice, as of September 20, 2013, tbatlvlr. McDonal<l was a sales representative under ISRA, ami was entitled as ilmattcr of law to nrg\IC pmstlant to it that he wns entitled to exemplary ~amagcs. 1 Tile "omt in McDonald II has been ~skcd to consider Cctis' C01ldnct since Ihe Law Cmn·t decision in the spring of201J nold to fwd it to be ve~utions. The Court cam tot do that, however, wilhotlt giving so111c weight to the legitimate legal disputes that rcmaine<l unresolved dw·ing much ol' the time hetwcN\ the Law Court decisions, and when the payments were made In addition, the Com I finds that there were ~I tempts to come to a global settlement of tile parties' rhS)J\lte Pli1Wiill has nrgtted lhmnghoul MtDonnld II tim! any S\1Ch di"cussious a1 c ;, relevant ~~ the issues the Co111 I must decide on the issnG of cxempl~ry dn1nagcs Fir<!, he nrgues that no settle'ment offers were evet·m•de by Celis, nttd even ;[ 'The Cm1rt 1CJOCts Cot,,' nrgUillOIH Ihal issue prociusiot1 wmk.< 111 Iius case to prevent r<covery o;" """'''Pl"Y damages by )\<II , McDnuold The cmlr! 's Jnnuary 20 14 dcci,ion focused li()Dll Sci lee., dcm1on to te"" innlc lho ogrocouent •nd l'eli.~<al to P')' commi»iu"' "'' Avayn soles nncr tem>ination. And ns noted, 11 co11"dcrcd Ihe <lisp111e bellveen the p,.tie• to be a "'legi!imm•· legal thspnte over H1e dtwatioll of a colll<aot. which dispute"'"' ldtimfilcly "''~lvcd by til" Lmv C~u1·t" rg. J of Jn~H1,1ry 7, 201•1 Deci•ion a11d Ord~', ln thi> ""'"• the Co\lrt fectmes on til~ failure 10 I'•'Y :)oSI·illfll ""'""';,.,;o,., onoe tile l,aw C<ltlrl i;,ued liS sprillg 201 J dec sion•. 6 there were "disc\•ssions" (hnt they were so iMtt\Jstantial that they do not provide a dcftnsc for Cet1s on the ISSttc of exemplury dmna~cs. II\ addition, Plninti ff seem.< ttbo to at Bile that f:et1s' position rogtn·ding these discuS>ioos, such us they were, should not be given tmy weight because the pnrtics we•·c still litigutiug. The Co,n·t finds at the outset thnt lhel'e wete in fact se!tlement discussions which were actually i niatcd by Plai.11liff s CO\Hlsel. The Courtlw:; no! been made privy to the dctuils of the discussions, but it is undeniable that they oectHTed, even if they were tlltimutely \111succcssf•.ll. The Cmnl would note that buth pat1ics wmtltl likely be mutiv~tcd lo oettle. pnrtiCll\arly Ceti~. ;ince after the l.nw Court issne<l its spring20 l 3 decisions, Cctis remains imleftnilcly obligated to pay commission to Mr. McDmmld for Avaya sales, \Vhile it is clea,·tbat D!'. Sun is not n fan of Mr. McDonald, it is cqtmlly clear li-om M!·. McDoth11d's lrialte.~limony that he hHs tlO ]JOsitive regm~l fm• Dr. Sm1. Years oflngll-conflic1, expensive liligation likely have pluyod a large role in tltell nu11ual dislike. In ndditiotl, lhe Court does not lind pcrsnasive Plnilltiff's senlemwt dism~Ssious ~rgumenllhat ore lttilikdy to ocmor, or to be meauingfnl, if p.1rties n•~ uctiwly •nvol ved in iiligution. The Co\ll't is confident thai cmmsel for both pnrties have Sltccessfitlly ~Ltd simnltatteO\lsly ut1gaged in these (H[fetent stmtcgie.~ on m~ny occasions tntheir legal jll'actices. The parties have spcat much cffot I deboting about lite extent of Ihe Hettlemcnt dtscnss1ons In oddili on, Plointiff claims they are not rclcvunt '" oil, while Celis c~se>~twl!y asserts tlwi r existence ns ~ dcfc!l.1e. Plnu1ttfT has wni vcd altomey-cl lent I" ivi l~ge by ~ssClting itl~isled thronghout that Cot is tins detense, while Celis f ocuscs on tim fact 7 tlmtthere wet·e, n> the 1\\ltlale<ll>~ Co11rtlm~ t(l\md, scMiemcnt discmsiu,,, "nd that They were Plaintiffs counsel. A review of the col1"~spon~ence \>~tween the p~t·tics, including emails, indicates ib<Ollhese discnosio11S were not cuuTiiiUOliS lhl'Oliglmllt the time petiod from when tbey wc1e iJlitiate<l l>j• M1. McDonald's counsel (lite dny the case ''as ooally argued before the Law Court) nud Ibe time the colllmission wetc paid ill Octo bet' ol"2013. Howcvco·, the Court di~ngoccs with Plain till's c!Jnmderization of these <il8ctlssiolls as insubstantial and ;oTelevanl. The parries agree theoc was a dlscttssion at the Dial m-gttmcnt i.n April of2013 (De f.'s Ex. •16), and an c~rly Jnne 2013 cnwil co11firms that Mr. McDonald's attorney Wits .-eques!ing "commissin11ablc s~lcs" information fo om ucgo!iated sett!enlCnt regmding Plainlift's rights to (llef_ 'sEx, 47.) Attotlleo· ~mni! Ccti.~ "fulm~ m bapes of reaching a commission paymcnls," from Cetis' cmmscl [O his client dated Jnly 2, 2013 references Plaillti ff's int~rcst in more financial information for that "ame jl\ll'JlOSe. (De f.'s Ex. 43.) H appears !hat the next steps 111 the litigation, namely the briefing and arguments regarding the applicability af ISR 1\, became the priorities of l>oth parties, perhaps to the detriment of negotiation, wlth Plaintiff's Reply llricf beine tlled on oo' nbo\tt Augtl't 7, 2013. Jlowcvcr, a week Mtcr the decision on !Sl{A's applicability wns conveyed to Dr. Sun on September 23, 2C: 3, Ihe iss\IC of settlement L e·cmcrgcd. Plaintiff's ~0\l!tscl (accoo-ding 10 Detenda11t 's co@sel) Sllggcsted "tlmt yon (Dr. Sun) and McDonald might wunl to think ~gain about settling Ihis lli;;putc." (Dd.' s Ex. 52.) The Com! infers t1-nm lhisemnil J'rom Cetis' coumcl1o Dr. Sun that at least !\·om the point o'-vicw of neremlant' s C<.lWl&el, whotevcr ncgoi iation,\ that ilnd occtmnl nnd which lmd filibl c<.l\lld be J'e,ivcd only i:' lwfll parties were willing m "think a!_[nin." On October 3, 201 J 8 ,, 01 ~~.lj 0.1~~~ SO]IJ~d "!lJOq l"'ll spuu ).!llCJ;) Ol).l -~]O"U<i ~l<l<J)JifO "" 110 f'liH ''ll0fSSlWLILOJ :U[ll·ISOd IOJ S)UD!Ilh"d IIO]S.(llUUO~ ~~UILI 0) IJOjlOOli >]10;) l~lillrl'l 'po:JUJ !JU\1 )UO\IrO[\l~S )Uq"f'3 U l~']l(l~JOH [OSUllOO SJ.ji)UIUfd '~i~P )Uq) <1(} '0"1101)~3])'10 JtllJIIJ .IOJ )Ll~m.(ud \\\1\s dUll\] U uo IIO]IU)lO\!Ott.!OI!IJilj ~dlll[J~d ptm 'mlSSI s~i'!UttW[l -'.IU]dHI~~~ pllU ~~_]~!]I [0 UD!)Il]O£~t )Uf0fp11 I \!Hfl]UA\U O[!(jhl SUO]!>S]UIUID~ fl!] lJ·WOd Olp jO )IIOWJ.:Uc! _,fUI).tUd., U O~UllL SlJ~;) )Ul[l A).Wd .!~\flO 011\ 01 pOISOf!~llS Apu~p OAm[ OJ sm•~s- [JQ~jO .10<]0100 fl)llll till )SUO) jU -- .\1\000 P!P SU0t6,110S]p OntO> IWliM -11'0]-IOd OW]l Oljl 'UOSIALN OO])Silf Aq 8U].Illp ,\J.Wd .tOl[)JON IIO])IlfO:r.l.t 3u]l]UIIIY IJ ]IS O.IOAI ·~o\IUUIUp A.mjtltuox~ puu •o~J [OStmoo ,(puwu 'sansst f>Sfl\11.10 :llliOS )SUO[ IV ·r:uo!)ulhrqo fi.UIJ!"\1 .T<JJ wns dull> I ~ puu 'sOll'UtUUp .(rn[d!U~~Q 'sOOJ s,\01! 101)~ 0~]~ lll<J 'SUOfSSft!!l!IOO ~np-JS~ll Aj11l\ )OU p~p11j;)\lf puum~p S.IT!J!IJU[,[JUq) SUA\ 'fl.\000.1 fUf.l) O•JI ~,l\IUpliOJOQ A<J j>~).IUda.l SU 'Xtr )'UJ[ )U Iff po~UOI!IHJO-ml ~IJUflH~SSO ijGf puu ]JSUI\OJ '~)Up )Ul[IJO 'U 1\0fii'Wli s, 'JGQ) ,."SUOfSS!Ul\\lOO Q.!I\)L\j -'OJ S-JJflllfUJ<i 'sp.lOh\ .l:ll\)0 Uf ('I>> lULlS dUlU[ \l pUll ~ltSSf fllJHnW[> .(W[dmOXO puU OOJ 0\); ~h~pnp!IJ 'SIIlJUP II" JOJ JUJlll~ud Jll~\tiOllJJ> ij" ~"! Jll"A' '!11 o) 1'"1'"1!·'11" sUM ss"nfdduqnn S,jO.'>UilO:l SJJ!)UfUJJ 'jili\OOOU aq) l[)!h\ )11".1.11\0 <fJO~ pUU SI!OfSSfW\!100 Ollp lOUd -\Ud ~JUO OJ '~!Up )U\[1 JO Sll ']l"[>U~)Uf Sfi~J il'lil pjOJ 3"f~<\ ll\f~\ ~ddrt[ULI S~'" )U\>fi~ BJJ)Illf~Jd )Ul)IIWJl[O "P"I!J Sf\) p:>lii.IOJII) [nstmoo "JHUpliJjJQ \: [(ll 'U JCH]OJO() H() "<\ PJllO~\ 4W[dm~X~ ]lOU ('r~ 'Xt/ s, 'JJQ) l)t1SAIU] A\Jll u jUI[l '£ I 0? '>I ,[J~OPO ~q pOAJOS~J )0\[ <l.lJM .,>JillllliUp JSO.JJ)"f., lJi!l" ,lJI[)JiJo) - ~l<OfWfHJ\1100 JUf.'I·ISOd JSOI[J j f ]UI[j [l~jlliUHidp O~[U ,10))0[ 0\llUS \Ill II H) fd"IIIOJ SJ.Jf)U!U[d 'lJMOIOH '("SOOfSSfUTITlO:l ~Uf-1)-)SOd, 0'[1) g]Up 01 IIOZ AOqtlldJgQ II) [Ufll gJ[J [OSIILIUJ SJ;)!lli!Uid \: JOt 'L QJU)S [JJIUJJU ?A~ I[ jUIIJ SliO)SS~mHOJ, .lOJ pliUlliQ[I U~jllllll .IJqOPQ II() "IIO)IUSUJdiiiOJ J llllllJ OJ )lJOtiiO)I ltiO SJ,fl)IJ)U]J ,.1110 ftll!Anq, '!1'\) J D sosod.U1d ->OJ .. 'f"AJulry sortuuwa., u FI?S '?>unoo s,JJliW"J,f .\"egcst 011~h an in teL im solution. wllile reserving their rigltt> on the jmliciully-utu•csolvcd "'"es of cxcouplm y dmn,ecs M<l co\Lmel tee_, under McDon~ld I. On October 2J, 2111 3 Celis sent Plnintiff n cileck by ovcmiglll mail for post-It inl commissious, and the pao1ies agree that Celis wus cmrent us of tb~l tl"te for nil conunbsiotw owed. PlnWHff's COLnptaml wos lllcd October 24, 2013. Tile Court i~ tmpcrsl!a(icd, bused 11pnn its review of case luw, that it should hold Celis to a different •lnndnrd tmder JSRA thml was nr(iculntcd by Juslicc Nivison in his .lmnon•y 7, 7.014 rlccisiou. The Co\H"I fm!her cmoch1des based oil the evid~nce presented, thai Cctis' conduct did HOI constitute bad faith, much less "vex~lions" mfusnl to pay. The Co\ll"l cmmol 1gnore the complex proccdut·al postnre of IWs c~se, including 11\c demanding litigation cffm Is expended by both tmrties a1 the snmc time sclllemcnt discmdmos between the parties occmred, and llltimntcly fnilcd, It also cannot ignore Ji\•ticc Nivison's previous fi1Kih1g of January 7, 2014, there were legitimate legal <lispule~ between the parties which 1cquircd judicial delenninntion. Finally, it ca1mot ignmc the lack of clear <lemnnd from the Plaint! ff for payme.nt of just the post-tria( commissions while the p~rties the cmmn1ssions were pood EO Wailed judicial o·esolution of McDonald !, nntil j\ISI before a~d !his lawsui I was filed, Tile Comt therefore rc;ecls Pluinti ff's claim for cxcmplw;.· rlamages under lSRA. b. Corm.•el Fees While the ComtlwH rejected Plnillliff"s claim for an award o:· exemplary damage:;, it wnuld note agauttbnt Dcfcndam has conceded th~l the Law Cmn·t"s initial Moy, 2013 ole~i"'"ll in McDrmul<l 1 rewlved the breach or conorucl claim in thai case. In I he Cow1".o view, that decision also tesotvcd the breach of comract claim m tlis case 10 {Me IJnnuld 11) as well That is, once the l.nw Cmtrl issncd its dcci.«ion, there could be uo <;uuolion bm thai Celis hR(I ""obligation to pay post-trial commi"'ions on Avaya sales, and colllllllssions on"" ougoing bosis In adrli[ion, as noted above, neither party clc11rly excepted ft om theU- settlement disctwsions the issue of tbn l'~l'"'""l of just the post-trial cmmm'ssions, until J'nst before they we1e pnid. These cnuld huve b"cn paid by Celis while bolh pur lies reserved their t·ights to nrgne abo ttl the applicnl>ility of ISRA, l'laillli ft' s demand for cxemplnt-y da~>lal_~cs and C\\Unscl fees, whil~ also allowing the pmlics to conducl fln·thcl' 11cgotiatiolls on how Ceti~ might satisty its ful"'c obligations to the Plaintiff_ This fact works slrongly against Celis on tlw ;,,\\C of cou!tsel fees. Celis' negotiation> and Htignlion effmts from the Spring of20l3 fmw~rd, which the CmiL'l fill(ls were conducted in good faith, did not absolve it of il• obi igntions to pay the p~st ami ongoing cottuni'"ions, The Court rejecls Celis' argument that it could await final judgment 011 Ibe applicahility of ISM (and Ihe cxemplnty dalllnges analysis) befOre it ~:omplied with its contmchml obi ign!lons (Count I of this ens e) While the Comt nncc again does no I f11nl Ill at Celis' pUlSllit of its arguments regarding JSRA (as well as its nrgtttncnt' \\n exemplary <lamaJ>es) display~d lllly bad faith, Cetis pwsne\llhosc arguments al some d•k to itself, namely the risk that JSRA wo•Lid be foun~ I\\ apply The 1isk cotdd have been avoided by timely payment of the post-trial anrl ongou1g commissions once lhe Spri llg 20 13 decisions in McDonald I c!caoly established H.< legal duties. The Cout·l conclndes that Plainliffis entitled tc an award of counsel fees, pmsuam ta ISRA, fmm the Jatc the l.nw CmiltiSSlted its dccisiotls it: McDonald I until at least the ,1ate the tees wet c p~. d. \V itll ''"'!'CCI 10 the fee> i•tctll 1eti by the Plaintiff after the dntc the ~onm1 iss ions were paid, Ploi Lltiff did not directly add tess 1be L•<\lC of wll~ther fees incuacd t~""c fees ollnuld be snbjcctto ~ ~iffe1ent analysis than fees inc\urctl before tile)' Wet c [)~ id. 6 Plaintiffthetefmc ht~s twcllly-allc (21 ) days frotl\ the day of tllis decision to tHe ~n aff1davit of counsel fees, and to [llCSCitt arctttl\ent ~s tc why any fees .~houltl be 11W~nlcd fot services provided aftct pnytnc11ts of the post-t•·inl commissions wem tnadc in !'niL Defendant shall have fowtecn (I~) days to rcspollllto Plaint ifrs ftl ings. JV,CONCLUSION Based on tlw forcr,oi11g tbc entry will be: l). On Count J (ll1·each of CoHtmct) Jml~rmcut ,[,~]]be clltere~ for Pl~intiff. 2). On Count II (Violation of the Illinois Sales Reprc~entativc Act), Judgment slmU he entere<l for Pl~intiff, and !ll\ award ofcoumel fees ~hall be m"dc consistent with the directive a hove regarding further bl'icfing on that issue. Plaintiff's d~mand for an awar(l of exemplary da111ages is denied. J)_ Plaintift'is elltitl"d (o his ~osts. . ~~~LfC_ )="" BUSINESS AND CONS"l':l~)tCOUR'l' Enlcmd Ottilie Dccket:Jijo{.l"{ Copi~s sent via t,1aii_EieGtronically~ John E, McDonald, Jr. v. CETIS, Inc. BCD-CV-13-82 John E, McDonald, Jr. Plaintiff Counsel: john E. McDonald, Esq. One Portland Square PO Box 586 Portland, ME 04112-0586 CETIS, Inc. Defendant Counsel: Randall B Weill, Esq. Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. One City Center PO Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112-9546

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.