Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LEIGH v. ENGLE

October 30, 1989

CHARLES W. LEIGH, et al., Plaintiffs, GEORGE JOHNSON, et al., Intervenors,
v.
CLYDE WILLIAM ENGLE, et al., Defendants


Brian Barnett Duff, United States District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: DUFF

BRIAN BARNETT DUFF, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 The intervening plaintiffs in this case have moved under Rule 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., to alter or amend this court's judgment order entered June 15, 1989 -- demonstrating that the court was not unduly pessimistic when it predicted that it had not spoken the last word on this case. See Leigh v. Engle, 714 F. Supp. 1465, 1467 (N.D.Ill. 1989). In their Rule 59(e) motion, the intervenors submitted a laundry list of errors. By the time they filed their memorandum in support of their motion, the intervenors gained wisdom, and grouped their objections into three categories. The court will address only those points discussed in the intervenors' memorandum, and disregard the intervenors' initial jeremiad. *fn1"

 Rule 59(e) has two purposes in situations such as this one. First, it allows the intervenors to ask the court to reconsider its prior judgment and correct errors of law. See United States Labor Party v. Oremus, 619 F.2d 683, 687 (7th Cir. 1980). Second, it allows the court to grant relief to the intervenors on those claims which the court has found have merit, but which the court's judgment order has ignored. See Continental Cas. Co. v. Howard, 775 F.2d 876, 883-84 (7th Cir. 1985). The decision whether to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) is left to the sound discretion of the court.

 Reimbursement of the Trust with Interest

 In the court's previous ruling, it ordered Libco and Engle to pay the Reliable Trust $ 44,763.45. It ordered Dardick and Zuckerman to pay the same amount, although the court afforded them a limited opportunity to reduce their liability. *fn2" The intervenors do not contest the principal amount of these judgments; rather, they ask the court to order the defendants to make these awards with interest.

 The intervenors' request comes too late. As the court noted in its prior opinion, briefing on the reimbursement and attorneys fees issues in this case began in November 1987 and extended for over one and a half years. See Leigh, 714 F. Supp. at 1467 n. 2. At no time during that period did the intervenors ask the court to consider whether Libco, Engle, Dardick, and Zuckerman had to reimburse the Trust with interest. In fact, the only pleading to which the intervenors direct the court *fn3" is their complaint, filed over nine years ago while this case was pending before Judge Leighton of this district, which the intervenors ignored until now.

 This court would have considered whether the Trust was entitled to interest had someone raised the issue in a timely manner, but no one did. In the interest of finality of judgments, the court will not amend its prior order to compel the defendants to pay interest on amounts for which they must reimburse the Trust.

 Administration of the Trust

 The intervenors' second category of complaints about this court's prior ruling really should be labelled "Miscellany." The intervenors' arguments appear, disappear, and resurface like loons in a lake, although they are not as attractive. The court has reduced these objections to three; if the court has run roughshod over the intervenors' arguments, it is not in spite of the intervenors' clear presentation.

 The three objections are:

 
(1) The court failed to make findings about a litigation reserve created by the Trust.
 
(2) The court's order that the Trust pay some of the legal fees of the Trustee, Dardick, and Zuckerman results in double compensation; the court should order Aetna Casualty & Surety Company of Illinois to pay these fees, or alternatively, prohibit Dardick and ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.