Lois Trask v. Edgar Rodriguez
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7407
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- While gambling at the Horseshoe Casino, Lois Trask picked up a $20 bill that a patron had dropped; surveillance video showed the sequence but was ambiguous about whether she saw it fall.
- Casino staff reviewed video after the patron reported the loss, located Trask, and confronted her; two Indiana Gaming Commission agents then joined the casino security supervisor.
- Agents detained Trask for about 70 minutes in the casino’s security office to investigate, took her phone briefly, guided her physically to the office, had her dump and pat down her purse (seizing $8), accompanied her to her car (seizing $5 and her driver’s license), and then released and banned her; they retained $13.
- Trask sued pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment) and Indiana tort law (false arrest, battery, IIED) against the casino, the security supervisor, and the two agents.
- The district court enforced an oral settlement between Trask and the casino/security supervisor for $100, dismissing claims against them; the two agents moved for summary judgment and the court granted it after Trask failed to timely oppose the motion.
- Trask moved under Rule 60(b) claiming she never received the agents’ summary-judgment motion; the district court denied relief. Trask appealed; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agents’ detention violated Fourth Amendment | Trask: detention, phone seizure, guiding, and searches were unlawful and excessive | Agents: reasonable suspicion to investigate theft; detention length and measures were reasonable and minimally intrusive | Court: Trask waived challenge to substance by not opposing; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether phone seizure and physical guidance constituted excessive force/search | Trask: seizure/use of force and searches were unlawful | Agents: temporary phone control, mild guidance, and consented self-searches were reasonable | Court: no reversible error; claims dismissed (substantive challenge waived) |
| Whether settlement with casino was enforceable | Trask: she revoked acceptance within 24 hours; believed she had a 3-day right to rescind | Casino: binding oral acceptance of $100; Trask’s subsequent recantation irrelevant | Court: settlement enforced; Trask’s belief in a 3-day cooling off period rejected |
| Whether district court erred in denying Rule 60(b) relief for alleged nonreceipt of summary-judgment motion | Trask: she never received the motion and thus was deprived of chance to oppose | Agents: motion was mailed with proper notices; Trask received other related orders that referenced it | Court: denial affirmed—mailing and related orders should have put Trask on notice; she failed to seek copies or contact counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Pohl v. United Airlines, Inc., 213 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. 2000) (oral settlement enforcement principle)
- Timms v. Frank, 953 F.2d 281 (7th Cir. 1992) (notice requirements and instructions to pro se litigants in summary-judgment practice)
- Jonas v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., 52 N.E.3d 861 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (no 3-day cooling-off rule for settlement rescission under Indiana law)
- Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448 (Ind. 2003) (settlement/enforcement principles under Indiana law)
- Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Centers Inc., 577 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2009) (magistrate judges’ authority over nondispositive pretrial matters)
- Litecky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (adverse rulings do not alone demonstrate judicial bias)
- Thomas v. Reese, 787 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2015) (same principle regarding judicial impartiality)