Michael Sommerfield v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
697 F. App'x 458
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Sommerfield alleges his grandmother created an irrevocable trust in 1968 whose corpus (including a 25% share for him and his brothers) was largely diverted; trust reportedly worth at least $30 million in 1979 but Sommerfield received $18,754 after the grandmother’s 2008 death.
- He contends his mother, uncle, the trustee (Associated Trust Company), the trustee’s lawyer (David Timm), and Citigroup participated in fraudulent transfers and looting of the trust corpus during the grandmother’s lifetime.
- Sommerfield filed two federal suits in 2016 (consolidated); the district court treated the claims as fraud, theft, and breach of fiduciary duty and dismissed them as time-barred under Wisconsin statutes of limitation (3- and 6-year statutes).
- The district court also sanctioned Sommerfield for repeatedly filing frivolous litigation related to these events.
- On appeal, Sommerfield—pro se—did not challenge the district court’s legal reasoning or cite authorities; his brief reiterated factual allegations instead of advancing appellate arguments.
- The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for failure to brief issues and imposed sanctions: $5,000 to Citigroup and an across-the-circuit filing bar unless fees and the sanction are paid; limited opportunity to seek relief from the bar after two years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims are barred by statutes of limitation | Transfers were fraudulent; damages discovered in 2008 but alleges continuing concealment | Claims accrued no later than 2008 and are barred by Wisconsin 3- and 6-year statutes | District court’s statute-of-limitations dismissal stands (appellate brief did not challenge it) |
| Whether pro se brief suffices for appellate review | Proffered background and repeated allegations | Failure to present legal argument or authorities; violates FRAP 28(a)(8) | Appeal dismissed for failure to develop appellate argument |
| Whether sanctions are appropriate for frivolous appeals | Litigant asserts entitlement to relief (no substantive counterargument in brief) | Defendants: repeated frivolous suits justify sanctions and filing restrictions | Court imposed $5,000 sanction and an injunction against filing until fees/sanction paid |
| Whether circuit-wide filing restrictions are proper | Implicitly opposes restriction by continuation of appeals | Defendants seek bar to prevent further abusive filings | Court authorized clerks to return unfiled submissions from Sommerfield until conditions met; limited exceptions and a two-year renewal window |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2001) (pro se filings are construed liberally but must comply with briefing rules)
- Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669 (7th Cir. 2012) (declines strict rule enforcement on behalf of parties who ignore rules)
- Collins v. Educ. Therapy Ctr., 184 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 1999) (frivolous appeals warrant sanctions)
- Homola v. McNamara, 59 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 1995) (courts may curb abusive litigants)
- In re City of Chicago, 500 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2007) (authority for filing restrictions tied to unpaid court fees)
- Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995) (standards and exceptions for pre-filing restrictions and filing bars)