The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mills, District Judge:
This case involves Can Am's baseless refusal to allow Firestone
to use an easement that ran across Can Am's land.
Can Am acquired a state TRO, which we obviated by our own TRO
and permanent injunction.
Can Am argued that they were afraid that Firestone would dig
up, remove, and subsequently scatter hazardous waste, thus
causing injury to Can Am when the waste was scattered around.
We found earlier that Can Am's fears were absolutely without
merit, as Firestone was refurbishing the site, not tearing it up,
and that there was no merit to Can Am's arguments, as Can Am was
"shaking down" Firestone for $25,000, which was the price
Firestone would have had to pay to get access. Can Am several
times violated its own state court TRO by denying any access
whatsoever to the site, and violated our orders by refusing
further access to the site.
Also, to exacerbate the situation, Can Am in its latest
pleading attempts to bolster its argument that it feared removal
of wastes by Firestone, by submitting an undated newspaper
article purportedly published in August or early September which
listed the site as dangerous and ripe for official action.
Firestone supplied us with the same article, taken from the same
newspaper, dated October 2, 1985, a month after the TRO's were
entered and approximately 2 weeks after our permanent injunction.
On September 10, 1985, Plaintiff Can Am obtained, in the
Illinois Circuit Court of Adams County, a temporary restraining
order prohibiting Firestone from using an easement it owned, that
crossed Can Am's property. Firestone was going to use the
easement order to reach a chemical dump site that Firestone owned
and was going to repair.
Now Firestone is moving for the damages it incurred in having
to postpone preconstruction meetings on the site and construction
itself, as well as all costs and fees incurred in securing their
right to use their easement.
The law and facts side with Firestone, though they ask for a
bit too much.
Firestone seeks actual and punitive damages, based on Illinois
common law; costs and damages allowed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c) and
65.1, as a result of the damage suffered because of
"improvidently issued" TRO in the state court; sanctions and
damages under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and
Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 110, § 2-611, for Firestone having to defend
"against Can Am's false and fraudulent allegations."
The period of time that is covered is from August 22, 1985
(when Can Am notified Firestone of its intent to charge a $25,000
fee for use of its easement) until September 25, 1985, when
Firestone was able to begin work on its site. The amount of money
1. Contractor's fee for false
2. Witness fees associated
with court appearances = 7,411.74
3. Attorney's fees = 36,667.07
The contractor's fees came about because planners, workers, and
equipment arrived on the site to begin work, on several
occasions, but were denied access to the site by Can Am, once on
September 11, 1985, then two other false starts, but ...