Sommese v. American Bank & Trust Co., N.A.
2017 IL App (1st) 160530
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Sommese worked for American Bank in Illinois from April 2008 to December 20, 2010 and alleged unpaid wages after his separation.
- He sued in Iowa (per a forum-selection clause) on Jan 19, 2011, asserting breach of contract and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPA) claims; the Iowa court dismissed the IWPA claims as extraterritorial.
- An Iowa jury later awarded Sommese ~$997,274 on the breach-of-contract claim; that judgment was affirmed and paid in December 2014.
- Sommese separately filed an Illinois action seeking unpaid wages, 2% monthly statutory damages under section 14(a) of the IWPA (as amended effective Jan 1, 2011), and attorney fees.
- The Cook County court granted partial summary judgment on liability (collateral estoppel based on the Iowa verdict), but later dismissed Sommese’s section 14(a) statutory-damages claim as barred by prospective-only application of the 2011 amendment and denied attorney fees.
- Sommese appealed; the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed, holding (1) the 2011 amendment could not be applied retroactively to award the 2% damages here, and (2) collateral estoppel barred recovery of attorney fees arising from the Iowa proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sommese could recover 2% monthly statutory damages under amended §14(a) for unpaid wages paid after Jan 1, 2011 | Sommese sought damages only for unpaid months after the amendment’s effective date, so no retroactive application would be required | The claim accrued when wages were last due (before Jan 1, 2011); awarding §14(a) damages would require retroactive application of the amendment | Court: Amendment has prospective effect only; awarding statutory damages here would be impermissibly retroactive, so dismissal proper |
| Whether Sommese is entitled to attorney fees under §14(a) in Illinois action | If statutory damages are available, fees follow; otherwise other fee statutes might apply | No statutory damages recovered under §14(a); he already recovered wages in Iowa, so no fee recovery in Illinois under alternative fee statute | Court: No fees under §14(a); no double recovery and no fee award under Attorneys Fees in Wage Actions Act because wages were already recovered in Iowa |
| Whether collateral estoppel bars fees sought for Iowa litigation | Iowa order unclear; defendant has not met heavy burden to show identity of issues, finality, and preclusive effect | Iowa dismissed IWPA claims on merits (extraterritoriality); plaintiff didn’t appeal; identical issue and final adjudication support preclusion | Court: Collateral estoppel applies — Iowa ruling was a merits dismissal on extraterritoriality, final and binding, so Iowa-related fee claim barred |
| Whether Iowa dismissal was jurisdictional (thus non-preclusive) or merits-based | Sommese contended dismissal was jurisdictional and not a final adjudication on merits | The extraterritoriality question is a merits question, not jurisdictional | Court: Follows Supreme Court and Illinois precedent — extraterritoriality is merits-based; dismissal was on the merits and preclusive |
Key Cases Cited
- Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (framework for determining prospective vs. retroactive application of statutes)
- Caveney v. Bower, 207 Ill. 2d 82 (Ill. 2003) (distinguishing procedural vs. substantive amendments under Statute on Statutes)
- People ex rel. Madigan v. J.T. Einoder, Inc., 2015 IL 117193 (Ill. 2015) (legislative intent controls temporal reach; stepwise Landgraf analysis)
- Du Page Forklift Service, Inc. v. Material Handling Services, Inc., 195 Ill. 2d 71 (Ill. 2001) (elements and purpose of collateral estoppel)
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010) (determining whether a statute has extraterritorial application is a merits question)
- River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill. 2d 290 (Ill. 1998) (dismissal for failure to state a claim is an adjudication on the merits)
- Melton v. Frigidaire, 346 Ill. App. 3d 331 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (standard of review for attorney-fee entitlement in wage cases)
- Peregrine Financial Group, Inc. v. Martinez, 305 Ill. App. 3d 571 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999) (party asserting collateral estoppel bears burden to show prior judgment’s precise scope)