Alioto v. Town of Lisbon
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13841
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Alioto, a sergeant in the Town of Lisbon Police Department, led an inquiry into police chief Martorano for potential double-dipping and wrongdoing.
- Martorano warned Alioto and later Martorano and town administrator Musche allegedly conspired to retaliate after the investigation.
- Alioto's report led to Martorano's administrative leave and Alioto becoming acting chief, followed by an independent investigation favorable to the town but Martorano returning.
- Alleged retaliation included defamation, a criminal charge against Alioto that was later dismissed for lack of probable cause, and efforts to bar Alioto from returning to work.
- Alioto took medical leave in 2006 due to stress; in 2007 he attempted to return but was blocked by additional fitness-for-duty requirements and descriptive medical releases.
- In December 2007, the Town disbanded its police department; Alioto was not invited to join the successor police force, and he filed suit in July 2008, later removed to federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of appeal on dismissal | Alioto did not respond to dismissal arguments and sought amendment; waiver should not bar review | Alioto waived his right to appeal by failing to respond to the motions propertly | Waived; district court affirmed without abuse of discretion |
| Good-cause standard for amendment under Rule 16(b) | Alioto acted with diligence and should be allowed to amend | Alioto failed to demonstrate good cause and was dilatory | District court did not abuse its discretion; no good cause to modify scheduling order |
| Need for pleading specific legal theories | Complaint need not plead legal theories; theories can be learned in discovery | Complaint must identify violated constitutional rights and theories | Complaint need not plead legal theories; waiver and other issues govern here |
Key Cases Cited
- Trustmark Ins. Co. v. General & Cologne Life Re of Am., 424 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2005) (requires good-cause showing for Rule 16(b) amendments when scheduling orders exist)
- Lekas v. Briley, 405 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 2005) (waiver when a party fails to argue discrete issues on appeal)
- Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 624 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2010) (waiver and failure to respond on appeal can support affirmance)
- Foster v. DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2008) (no right to amend after scheduling-order deadline unless permitted by rule)
- Smith v. Med. Benefit Adm'rs Group, Inc., 639 F.3d 277 (7th Cir. 2011) (complaint need not plead legal theories)
- Joseph v. Elan Motorsports Techs. Racing Corp., 638 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2011) (pleading standards do not require listing legal theories)
- Rabe v. United Air Lines, Inc., 636 F.3d 866 (7th Cir. 2011) (pleading sufficiency and notice pleading standards)