How a Defense Verdict That Wasn't Became a $25M Settlement
Winston & Strawn found itself caught up in a case involving a rogue courthouse clerk; a trial lawyer accused of fraud; and, at last check, a publicly traded company on the hook for a yachting accident.
April 11, 2018 at 03:08 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Dan Webb, co-executive chairman of Winston & Strawn.
One of the nation's largest law firms may have reached the end in a rare case involving a rogue court clerk, a trial lawyer accused of fraud, multiple claims of victory by both sides and, as of Tuesday, a publicly traded company on the hook for a $25 million settlement.
That is the series of events that kicked off nearly three years ago when a Chicago courthouse clerk tipped off local plaintiffs lawyer Mark McNabola that a jury had asked a question indicating it was leaning in the defense's favor. Without the defendants being aware of the jury's question, McNabola reached a $25 million settlement. A judge in Cook County, Illinois, then allowed the jury to return a verdict for the defense.
The saga, which included a quasi-retrial in state court before the Illinois Supreme Court declined to hear the case, may have finally concluded on April 10. A federal court upheld the settlement and dismissed a suit brought by Brunswick Corp. that alleged misconduct in the case “directly implicated the integrity of the judicial system in Cook County” and sought damages from McNabola, his law firm and the former court clerk, Tatiana Agee.
The underlying case was a personal injury claim brought by Scot Vandenberg, who is now a quadriplegic after suffering a 12-foot fall on a yacht manufactured by Brunswick, a suburban Chicago-based manufacturer of fitness, maritime and recreational products.
Dan Webb, an American Lawyer Lifetime Achiever and top litigator at Winston & Strawn, where he serves as co-executive chairman, represented Brunswick in the federal case against McNabola and others. Webb, who last year secured a massive settlement on behalf of Beef Products Inc. over the company's controversial “pink slime,” did not return a request for comment about whether Brunswick would appeal the ruling.
McNabola's lawyer, Edward Feldman, a partner at Windy City-based litigation boutique Miller Shakman & Beem, said the ruling vindicated his client, a personal injury lawyer who had his “name and reputation attacked.”
“Mark was certainly not happy to have his reputation falsely attacked in that way,” Feldman said. “But the important thing is that the attacks failed. And the most important thing is that the Vandenbergs' $25 million settlement that Mark negotiated for them has been affirmed. Hopefully soon they will get the compensation that has been long overdue for them.”
The dispute in the case centers around a frenzied and disputed 45 minutes on June 9, 2015.
At 3:50 p.m. on that day, the Cook County jury sent in a question asking whether it could find fault with the owner of the Lake Michigan-based yacht, RQM, without finding fault with Brunswick. RQM had already settled and was an “empty-chair defendant” throughout the two-week trial.
Two minutes later, the clerk, Agee, called McNabola and told him the jury's question, which was not typical.
McNabola's response has been hotly contested and is the basis for his lawyer's comments about his reputation being attacked. In an evidentiary-style hearing in Cook County court in October 2015, McNabola said it was a “bold-faced lie” that he told Agee to “hold off” on calling the defense counsel so he could broker a settlement.
Phone records produced in that hearing show a call was placed from Agee to McNabola's phone at 3:52 p.m., while Agee called 27 minutes later to a lawyer for the defense, John Patton, a senior partner at Chicago's Patton & Ryan. (Winston & Strawn was not involved in the defense of the initial personal injury claim.)
In the interim, McNabola spoke with Patton and said the jury was still deliberating, but did not mention the jury question, according to Brunswick's complaint. McNabola and a claims adjuster for the insurance company reached a $25 million settlement—an offer previously turned down by McNabola—shortly thereafter.
The parties convened in the judge's chambers about 45 minutes after the jury question was initially sent in. After expressing some confusion as to why it took them so long to convene, a defense lawyer said they came as soon as they learned there was a question. It was only then that they learned the contents of that question. The judge then put the settlement on record.
Unaware of the settlement, the jury reached a defense verdict about 10 minutes later.
In the subsequent evidentiary hearing, a judicial extern testified that she overheard Agee tell McNabola the contents of the jury question. The extern also alleged that Agee said she held off on calling the defense counsel in order “to give the plaintiffs … a little more of an opportunity to kind of settle or figure this out” and to “give the plaintiffs an advantage,” according to Brunswick's complaint.
Following that hearing, a Cook County judge vacated the settlement in January 2016 and later entered the defense verdict after reconstituting the jury and polling them on whether they had delivered a unanimous verdict.
That judge then recused himself and a third judge entered an order in December 2016 finding the settlement enforceable and vacating all the previous orders inconsistent with that finding. That order was upheld late last year by an Illinois appeals court and the Illinois Supreme Court declined to hear Brunswick's appeal.
Brunswick hired Winston & Strawn to act offensively in undoing the $25 million settlement. In December 2016, the firm filed suit against McNabola in a Chicago federal court, alleging fraud and negligence by McNabola and arguing that his communications with Agee violated Brunswick's constitutional right to a fair trial.
But U.S. District Judge Manish Shah of the Northern District of Illinois said that a jury verdict is not a protected property interest, which is what Brunswick must have been deprived of in order to state a due process claim.
“Brunswick reasons that a jury verdict is a judgment, and a judgment is a protected property interest. This is incorrect,” Shah wrote. “A final judgment—one that is no longer subject to review or modification—is a property interest protectable by due process. But a jury verdict is not. A jury's verdict is the basis upon which a judgment may be entered.”
Shah dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and dismissed the state claims without prejudice in his April 10 ruling.
Feldman, McNabola's lawyer, said he was pleased with the opinion.
“I'm hoping that the whole shooting match is over between Brunswick and the Vandenbergs and between Brunswick and Mark McNabola,” Feldman said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTravis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readLegal Speak's 'Sidebar with Saul' Part IV: Deliberations Begin in First Trump Criminal Trial
1 minute readJosh Partington of Snell & Wilmer Is in Fact a Rock Star in the Office (and Out of It)
1 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and Pryor Cashman have entered appearances for Diageo Americas Supply d/b/a Ciroc Distilling Co. and Sony Songs, a division of Sony Music Publishing, respectively, in a pending lawsuit. The case was filed Sept. 10 in New York Southern District Court by the Bloom Firm and IP Legal Studio on behalf of Dawn Angelique Richard. The plaintiff, who performed as a member of producer Sean 'Diddy' Combs girl group Danity Kane and later his band, Diddy - Dirty Money, claims that she was financially exploited by Combs and subjected to inhumane working conditions. Among other violations, Richard claims that Combs required group members to remain at his residences and studios, deprived them of adequate food and sleep and forced them to rehearse for 36 to 48 hours without breaks. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla, is 1:24-cv-06848, Richard v. Combs et al.
Who Got The Work
Mathilda McGee-Tubb and Kevin M. McGinty of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, as well as Jesse W. Belcher-Timme of Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury & Murphy, have stepped in to defend Peter Pan Bus Lines in a pending consumer class action. The suit, filed Sept. 4 in Massachusetts District Court by Hackett Feinberg PC and KalielGold PLLC, accuses the defendant of charging undisclosed 'junk fees' on top of ticket prices during checkout. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni, is 3:24-cv-12277, Mulani et al v. Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.