Fletcher v. Hoeppner Wagner & Evans, 2:14-cv-00231

Plaintiff Paul Fletcher sued multiple defendants, including attorney Wayne Golomb, alleging constructive fraud, constructive trust, and an accounting/turnover related to changes in beneficiary designations on Fidelity accounts.
On September 25, 2017 the court granted summary judgment for Golomb and dismissed Counts II–IV (the claims against Golomb).
Fletcher, proceeding pro se, filed a motion (Oct. 26, 2017) to vacate or amend that order under Rule 52(b), 54(b), or Rule 59, asserting the court overlooked evidence and misinterpreted facts.
Central factual disputes concerned whether Golomb owed Fletcher a fiduciary duty (based on limited trading authority over Taylor’s Fidelity accounts), whether Golomb benefited at Fletcher’s expense (including a $30,000 gift from Mrs. Taylor to Golomb), and allegations that a third party (Zupan) impersonated Taylor to change beneficiaries.
The court treated Fletcher’s filing as a Rule 54(b) reconsideration request, reviewed the record and briefing, and found Fletcher failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue that Golomb owed him a fiduciary duty or that Golomb gained an advantage at Fletcher’s expense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court should reconsider its summary judgment order	Fletcher argued the court overlooked/misinterpreted key circumstantial evidence and newly identified bank-record issues	Golomb argued the summary judgment was correct based on undisputed record and prior briefing; plaintiff had opportunity to oppose	Denied — no basis for reconsideration under Rule 54(b); court did not misapprehend record
Whether Golomb owed Fletcher a fiduciary duty sufficient for constructive fraud	Fletcher asserted a beneficiary relationship and facts (including impersonation/forgery theory) establishing fiduciary duty	Golomb showed only limited trading authority from Taylor and no special relationship with Fletcher	Denied — Fletcher failed to raise a genuine dispute that Golomb owed him a fiduciary duty
Whether Golomb gained an advantage at Fletcher’s expense (element of constructive fraud/constructive trust)	Fletcher pointed to a $30,000 transfer to Golomb and argued it derived from the Fidelity accounts	Golomb and record evidence did not link the $30,000 to the Fidelity accounts or show economic loss to Fletcher	Denied — no evidence Golomb gained at Fletcher’s expense
Proper procedural vehicle for relief (Rule 59 vs Rule 54(b))	Fletcher asked relief under Rules 52(b), 54(b), or 59	Golomb and court noted partial summary judgment is interlocutory; Rule 54(b) governs reconsideration	Court applied Rule 54(b) and denied reconsideration as unwarranted

Deimer v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Prods., Inc., 990 F.2d 342 (7th Cir. 1993) (partial summary judgment is not a final judgment for Rule 59 purposes)
Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185 (7th Cir. 1990) (motions to reconsider under Rule 54(b) are rare and permitted for misapprehension or intervening law/facts)
Timms v. Frank, 953 F.2d 281 (7th Cir. 1992) (summary judgment response obligations for pro se litigants)
Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2003) (nonmovant must affirmatively demonstrate genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment)
Hammel v. Eau Galle Cheese Factory, 407 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment is the ‘put up or shut up’ moment)