Sommese v. American Bank & Trust Co., N.A.
2017 IL App (1st) 160530
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Sommese worked for American Bank & Trust in Illinois from April 2008 to December 20, 2010; his employment agreement contained an Iowa forum-selection clause.
- In January 2011 Sommese sued in Iowa for breach of contract and for recovery under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (the Act); the Iowa court dismissed the Act claim as an impermissible extraterritorial application, and the breach claim proceeded to jury verdict in December 2012 awarding Sommese $997,274.16.
- Sommese then filed an Illinois action (Cook County) in July 2012 seeking unpaid wages, 2% per-month statutory damages under amended section 14(a) of the Act (effective Jan 1, 2011), and attorney’s fees; the Illinois court granted partial summary judgment on liability based on collateral estoppel from the Iowa verdict.
- After post-judgment proceedings on fees, Sommese sought statutory damages (for the period Jan 1, 2011–Dec 23, 2014) and Illinois attorney fees; the trial court dismissed the statutory-damages claim as an impermissible retroactive application of the 2011 amendment and denied fees, including those for the Iowa action, via collateral estoppel.
- Sommese appealed; the Illinois Appellate Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and affirmed dismissal of statutory damages and denial of attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended §14(a) (effective Jan 1, 2011) could be applied to award 2% monthly damages for unpaid wages when nonpayment began before the amendment | Sommese: he sought damages only for the post‑effective period (Jan 1, 2011–payment date), so application is prospective, not retroactive | Bank: applying §14(a) would retroactively increase liability for conduct that accrued before the amendment; amendment should be applied only prospectively | Held: Amendment cannot be applied because Sommese’s cause of action accrued before Jan 1, 2011; awarding §14(a) damages would be retroactive, so statutory damages dismissed |
| Whether Sommese was entitled to attorney fees in the Illinois action under §14(a) or other Illinois fee statutes | Sommese: even if §14(a) does not apply retroactively, he is entitled to fees for prosecuting the Illinois action | Bank: Sommese recovered wages via the Iowa judgment and cannot obtain duplicate recovery or fees for an Illinois claim that yielded no damages | Held: No fees under §14(a) (statute inapplicable) and no recovery under Attorneys Fees in Wage Actions Act because Sommese recovered wages already in Iowa; plaintiff obtained nothing in Illinois, so fees denied |
| Whether collateral estoppel bars Sommese from recovering attorney fees awarded for work in the Iowa action | Sommese: the Iowa order is unclear about its reasoning; defendant cannot meet burden to show the exact issue decided | Bank: the Iowa dismissal conclusively decided that the Act could not be applied extraterritorially and thus forecloses fee recovery under the Act | Held: Collateral estoppel applies—issues identical, parties the same, and Iowa dismissal was a final adjudication on the merits—so fees for the Iowa action denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (framework for determining whether statute applies retroactively)
- Caveney v. Bower, 207 Ill. 2d 82 (2003) (statute on statutes: procedural amendments may be retroactive; substantive may not)
- Du Page Forklift Serv., Inc. v. Material Handling Servs., Inc., 195 Ill. 2d 71 (2001) (elements for collateral estoppel in Illinois)
- Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010) (question whether a statute has extraterritorial effect is a merits question)
- River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill. 2d 290 (1998) (dismissal for failure to state a claim is an adjudication on the merits)
- Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 403 (2002) (principle against double recovery for one injury)