Langone v. Schad, Diamond and Shedden, P.C.
943 N.E.2d 673
Ill. App. Ct.2010Background
- Langone Law Firm and co-class counsels Schad, Childress, and Madonia entered into a contingent fee agreement with Royal Macabees class members.
- Class certification was granted in 2000; Schad, Childress, and Madonia were named cocounsel; Schad later became lead counsel and others were trial counsel.
- Settlement: $93 million cash fund plus an insurance rollback; class counsel petitioned for up to one-third of the cash fund as fees; Langone did not join that petition.
- Chancery court reviewed detailed fee time records, found substantial overstatement by cocounsel, and awarded $25 million (about 26.9%) with a lodestar multiplier; Langone was excluded from the fee award.
- Langone filed a breach of contract claim in October 2008 seeking pro rata share of fees; Schad, Madonia, and later Childress moved to dismiss; Langone sought 2-1203 relief and 2-616 amendment.
- Trial court dismissed Langone’s breach of contract claim with prejudice on April 20, 2009; Langone moved to rehear/modify under 2-1203 to remove the prejudice language and seek leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2-1203 relief was abused to remove prejudice | Langone seeks to modify to without prejudice to permit amendment. | Court properly denied 2-1203 relief; dismissal with prejudice stands. | No abuse; 2-1203 discretion upheld; modification denied. |
| Whether res judicata barred Langone's breach claim | Langone argues claim is distinct from prior fee ruling. | Identical transactional facts and final judgment foreclose relitigation. | Res judicata applied; prior final order barred the breach claim. |
| Whether the fee allocation could be upheld consistent with the contract | Langone asserts pro rata share should be awarded to him per contract. | Court limited award to cocounsel; Langone’s time records not submitted as directed. | Court did not abuse contract-based rationale; Langone’s pro rata share not awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of King, 336 Ill. App. 3d 83 (Ill. App. 2002) (2-1203 motions within court’s discretion)
- Droen v. Wechsler, 271 Ill. App. 3d 332 (Ill. App. 1995) (liberal amendment guidance for pleading defects)
- Cantrell v. Wendling, 249 Ill. App. 3d 1093 (Ill. App. 1993) (amendment of pleadings to resolve defects; liberal policy)
- Valdovinos v. Tomita, 394 Ill. App. 3d 4 (Ill. App. 2009) (2-619 standard; pleading sufficiency; admissions on appeal)
- River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill. 2d 290 (1998) (transactional approach to res judicata)
- Jackson v. Callan Publishing, Inc., 356 Ill. App. 3d 326 (Ill. App. 2005) (privity and identity of interests in res judicata)
- Cantwell v. Reinhart, 244 Ill. App. 3d 199 (Ill. App. 1993) (attorney fees as action in interest; res judicata relevance)
- Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (Ill. 1984) (appellate record adequacy; standard for reviewing)
- Ballweg v. City of Springfield, 114 Ill. 2d 107 (Ill. 1986) (finality for collateral estoppel context)