Minemyer v. R-Boc Representatives, Inc.
283 F.R.D. 392
N.D. Ill.2012Background
- Grimsley moved to challenge the court’s personal jurisdiction in 2007; Judge Coar denied dismissal based on fiduciary shield and due process.
- Judge Coar treated the fiduciary shield as discretionary and considered Grimsley’s involvement with Lundeen in R-Boc as defeating shield protection.
- The case was reassigned to the current court in 2008; discovery closed in 2009, but trial occurred in February 2012 after extensive pretrial activity.
- The parties held numerous hearings and the final pretrial order was not finalized until February 6, 2012, four and a half years after the initial ruling.
- Grimsley did not raise or press the jurisdiction issue during the long pretrial period and only questioned it during trial, leading to a finding of waiver/forfeiture.
- Even if forfeiture did not apply, the court would still deny Glimsley’s challenge on the merits, finding Grimsley’s actions deceptive and not protected by fiduciary shield.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grimsley waived the personal jurisdiction defense | Grimsley raised the issue early but did not press it for years | Waiver applies due to prolonged silence and sandbagging | Waiver/forfeiture applies; defense barred |
| Whether the fiduciary shield doctrine applies to Grimsley | Grimsley acted with personal discretion harming plaintiffs and not purely on employer instructions | Shield should apply if actions were within employer’s control | Not applicable; no shield due to deception and personal involvement |
| Whether the court properly exercised personal jurisdiction under due process | Plaintiff contends jurisdiction is proper given Grimsley’s Illinois activities | Defendant asserts lack of sufficient contacts | Denied; jurisdiction found improper given waiver/merit findings |
| Whether the pretrial order forfeiture rule extends to jurisdictional issues | Rule should not restrict non-jury issues | Rule governs forfeiture of defenses not raised in pretrial order | Rule applies; forfeiture/waiver triggered |
| Whether the merits support exercising jurisdiction over Grimsley | Evidence showed deceptive conduct by Grimsley undermining plaintiffs | Grimsley disputes the deception and personal agency | Merits favor plaintiff; lack of shield and personal involvement |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Nova Biomedical Corp., 38 F.3d 909 (7th Cir.1994) (shield withdrawn if agent acts for personal interests)
- Continental Bank, N.A. v. Meyer, 10 F.3d 1293 (7th Cir.1993) (waiver when defense not pressed to trial)
- Minemyer v. R-Boc Representatives, Inc., not cited with official reporter in opinion (N.D.Ill.2007) (fiduciary shield discretion and fairness considerations)
- Mullins v. TestAmerica, Inc., 564 F.3d 386 (5th Cir.2009) (defense not pressed at trial can limit jurisdictional burden)
- Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir.1998) (sandbagging may waive jurisdictional rights)
- Amer Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Regional Transp. Authority, 125 F.3d 420 (7th Cir.1997) (forfeiture doctrine in pretrial context)
- Rice v. Nova Biomedical Corp., 38 F.3d 909 (7th Cir.1994) (comparison to pretrial waiver rules)