Duran v. TOWN OF CICERO, ILL.
653 F.3d 632
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- 78 plaintiffs sued 17 officers and the Town of Cicero for federal civil-rights and state-tort claims arising from a chaotic September 2, 2000, melee at a Duran home party.
- Town stipulated officers acted within the scope of employment, making the Town vicariously liable for state claims on a joint-and-several basis; Monell and spoliation theories were pursued.
- The jury returned verdicts favoring 23 plaintiffs against some officers and the Town; the judgment could allow double recovery for the same injury.
- The verdict form and instructions were confusing, erroneously permitting separate damages against officers and the Town for the same injuries.
- District court denied Town’s Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment; this prompted Town’s appeal and plaintiffs’ cross-appeal on evidentiary rulings.
- On remand, the Seventh Circuit reverses and remands to correct the joint-and-several liability reflection and addresses the evidentiary issues raised on cross-appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 59(e) amendment was denied improperly. | Duran argues Town should be jointly and severally liable for single injuries. | Town contends judgment misstates joint liability, risking double recovery. | Yes; judgment must be amended to reflect single joint liability per plaintiff. |
| Whether the verdict form caused double recovery for the same injury. | Plaintiffs contend separate awards per officer and Town yield double recovery. | Town asserts shared liability should not double-count damages. | Double recovery must be avoided; remand to correct damages structure." |
| Spoliation evidence: admissibility of Castaneda video. | Castaneda video should support spoliation claim. | Confiscation of video before recording does not prove spoliation. | Castaneda videotape not admissible for spoliation; Gudino videotape remains valid spoliation basis. |
| Rule 404(b) admissibility of Vitalo misconduct complaints. | Complaints show bias/motive, admissible for proof other than propensity. | Evidence remote, highly prejudicial; risk of confusion. | Court did not abuse discretion; remains excluded. |
| Rule 609 admissibility of Peslak’s § 242 conviction. | Conviction admissible to show bias or credibility under Rule 609. | Conviction does not involve dishonesty; inadmissible under 609(a)(2). | Conviction excluded under Rule 609(a)(2); admissibility under 609(a)(1) forfeited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thornton v. Garcini, 237 Ill.2d 100 (Ill. 2010) (double recovery not allowed; single compensation required)
- Thomas v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff's Dept., 604 F.3d 293 (7th Cir. 2010) (damages awarded for indivisible injury not by defendant-by-defendant basis)
- Adames v. Sheahan, 233 Ill.2d 276 (Ill. 2009) (scope-of-employment for vicarious liability varies by context)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1983) (Monell liability for municipalities)
- Treece v. Hochstetler, 213 F.3d 360 (7th Cir. 2000) (Rule 404(b) analysis factors for other-act evidence)
- Manuel v. City of Chicago, 335 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2003) (deference to district court on 404(b) balancing; abuse-of-discretion review)
- Laxton v. Bartow, 421 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2005) (presumption that jury followed instructions; implied effect on verdicts)
- Wilson v. Williams, 182 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 1999) (need to renew tentative evidentiary rulings at trial to preserve issue)