Zoretic v. Darge
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14537
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Marilyn Zoretic and her family were evicted from a Glenview condominium unit in Jan 2009 pursuant to an order of possession; Castilian later permitted them to reenter but they never signed a lease or paid rent.
- New management (First Merit) sought to re-enforce the original 2008 order after Zoretic refused to sign a lease; Kovitz attorneys obtained a new date stamp on the original order and delivered it to the sheriff.
- On June 5 deputies Darge, Dyson, and Tryba executed the re-stamped order, entered the apartment with guns drawn, conducted a protective sweep, detained the Zoretics while completing paperwork, photographed items to be removed, and surrendered possession to Castilian’s agent.
- Zoretic sued the deputies (42 U.S.C. § 1983) for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, Sheriff Dart and Cook County for related policies, and Castilian/First Merit for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); the district court granted summary judgment to all defendants.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed as to the deputies’ Fourth Amendment claims, finding the deputies failed to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (no quasi-judicial immunity or lawful basis shown), and affirmed summary judgment for Castilian/First Merit on IIED (no extreme/outrageous conduct shown).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deputies were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity and could lawfully enter/search home during June 5 eviction | Zoretic: the second eviction lacked a valid enforceable order because Castilian had restored her possession after the first eviction, so deputies had no legal authority | Deputies: they acted pursuant to a facially valid eviction order (re-stamped by clerk) and thus are immune and their entry/search/detentions were lawful | Reversed for deputies: they failed to show as a matter of law that they acted under a valid order or are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity; material facts remain for Fourth Amendment claims |
| Whether a clerk’s re-stamping created a new enforceable eviction order | Zoretic: clerk stamp did not create a new order; Castilian needed to obtain a new judicial order | Defendants: the date-stamped order furnished authority to enforce eviction | Held: Clerk’s stamping is a ministerial act and does not substitute for a judicially entered new eviction order; defendants did not prove legal authority |
| Whether Castilian/First Merit acted with extreme and outrageous conduct supporting IIED | Zoretic: defendants knew she had been allowed back in and still pursued eviction, showing outrageousness and intent | Castilian/First Merit: they consulted counsel and acted on legal advice; lacked intent or knowledge that conduct was unlawful | Affirmed for Castilian/First Merit: conduct not extreme/outrageous and no evidence of requisite intent |
| Whether plaintiff produced evidence of severe emotional distress | Zoretic: offered evidence of emotional harm from eviction events | Defendants: challenged sufficiency of distress evidence | Not reached substantively by court because IIED failed on outrageousness; summary judgment affirmed on IIED claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard for seizures)
- Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228 (7th Cir. 1986) (quasi-judicial immunity for officials executing valid court orders)
- Richman v. Sheahan, 270 F.3d 430 (7th Cir. 2001) (rationale for quasi-judicial immunity to avoid harassment)
- Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279 (7th Cir. 2004) (analysis of quasi-judicial and discretionary functions)
- Dunn v. City of Elgin, 347 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2003) (no quasi-judicial immunity when enforcing unenforceable order)
- Dellenbach v. Letsinger, 889 F.2d 755 (7th Cir. 1989) (limited immunity for court personnel acting at judges’ direction)
- Gerhartz v. Richert, 779 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2015) (summary judgment burden discussion)