Plato Foufas and Plato Foufas & Co. v. Stanley J. Dru
319 F.3d 284
7th Cir.
2003
Check Treatment
Docket

*1 purposes light of the reviewing court Plato Foufas and Plato FOUFAS RA, the various and the and ADA Plaintiffs-Appellees, Co.,& ap- discrimination proving methods goal courts. by the federal proved of discrimina- ‘elimination ADA is the ” with disabilities.’ individuals against tion DRU, Defendant-Appellant. Stanley J. statutes but true under the At 31. That No. 02-1673. Clause, Protection Equal under not A fair infer- only claim left. is the which Appeals, Court of United States trial is happened at this what ence about Circuit. Seventh judged claim was equal protection that the scrutiny higher lever of a de under facto 15, 2002. Argued Oct. pres- allows because than the law 5, 2003. Feb. Decided RA Because and claims. of the ADA ence claims, jury was told of those pro- against the disabled

discrimination protection claim was equal

hibited. classifica- suspect as if there were

tried not, involved, in fact there is when

tion BZA have been should

the decision irrational and unre- it was

honored unless inter- any legitimate governmental

lated to The lack of This was established.

est. discriminatory animus on the

evidence themselves and BZA members

part of the zoning does not the HD-2

the fact that a methadone question allow for

without to the facility required an end

distribution the case protection claim

equal before jury. to the

went short, RA do not

In the ADA and the Discovery House to re- standing to

grant stated, the reasons profits. lost For

cover should have

judgment a matter law as protection on the granted equal judgment

claim. We therefore Reveese denying the Rule 50 court

of the district a matter of law judgment as

motion entry judg- this case for

and RemaND BZA.

ment for the *2 management Sycuan

the of the tribe’s ca- sino, Dru being and the tribe at odds over what the tribe owed. The settlement was in made 1998. The following year the parties entered into a further settlement agreement. It states that whereas “on or January about the Parties have entered into a resolution of their business differences” and any “desire to terminate potential liability that may exist between pursuant them to such dealings,” business parties agree the to release each other “from against any claims, and and all rights, nature, debts” etc. “of every char- description, acter and whether known or unknown, suspected unsuspected, or which Keck, (argued), Robert C. Jr. Keck & hereto, them, any Parties or of now Associates, IL, Chicago, Plaintiffs-Ap- for hold, any own or or have at time hereto- pellees. held, may fore owned or or any time (argued), Richard R. Holland Winter & hereafter own or hold.” The release IL, Knight, Chicago, Defendant-Appel- January dated 1999. lant. January reference to “on or about 1999” concerns the fact that in December POSNER, RIPPLE, Before 1998 Dru had Sy- advised Foufas that the KANNE, Judges. Circuit cuan prepared tribe was to settle the dis- POSNER, Judge. contract, Circuit pute management over the casino following and that month Dru and appeal requires This us to consider the Foufas had met over the matter and had proper interpretation of a release. The agreed that Foufas would obtain a one-half (we parties, and Dru can ignore Foufas in piece by interest of real estate owned corporation), Foufas’s in engaged are Dru, in pay who addition would Foufas managing They business of Indian casinos. percent any money in he received joined management forces of casi- Sycuan future from the tribe. tribes, nos for two the Lummi tribe in Washington Sycuan and the tribe in Dru Cali- contends that the broad fornia, but a falling extinguished part then had out that only two suing resulted in Dru in agreement, part Foufas’s a federal of the 1998 settlement tribe, district court in basing Sycuan federal related to the which Foufas jurisdiction on diversity citizenship. superseded by concedes was or the “on parties January settled the case means of about 1999” deal and was extin- agreement, an guished by agreement, which the district court re- the new settlement jurisdiction enforce, agreement January tained to in two parts. that we are release, In part, agreed pay the first Dru to calling part Fouf- but also one of the $275,000 settlement, in respect management as of the part that related to casino, $275,000 Lummi of the tribe’s and in agreement pay the Dru’s to Foufas part agreed pay percent second he to respect management of Foufas’s any money respect that Dru Lummi disagreed received tribe’s casino. Foufas agreement that he had the 1998 settlement and moved the

with Dru’s remember, product is the approved, the order had re- judge who, district — release, of the 1999 judge’s interpretation the settle- to enforce jurisdiction tained do approved, and so we pay which he had not order agreement ment —to *3 judge’s interpre not rest decision on the $275,000. judge agreed, Foufas the Rowe, F.2d South v. 759 tive discretion. appeals. (7th Cir.1985); 610, cf. Amax and n. 4 613 interpreting his own judge is When 1356, Quarterman, v. 181 F.3d Land Co. order, consent decree that he as a such (D.C.Cir.1999). Compare Martin v. 1368 to entered, interpretation is entitled his Health Review Occupational Safety & interpret than when he is weight greater Comm’n, 144, 152-53, 111 499 U.S. S.Ct. the formation of which a contract with ing (1991); 1171, 117 Goluba v. 113 L.Ed.2d v. nothing to do. United States he had 1035, Ripon, 45 F.3d School District of (7th 930, Alshabkhoun, 277 F.3d 933-34 (7th Cir.1995); n. 5 South Shore Hos 1038 Weber, 413, Cir.2002); 416 25 F.3d In re 91, Thompson, 308 F.3d 97 pital, Inc. v. (7th Cir.1994); In re Rock Island (1st Petroleum, Cir.2002); Inc. v. Lomak (7th 807, R.R., 865 F.2d 810-11 & Pacific (D.C.Cir.2000). FERC, 1193, 206 F.3d 1198 Cir.1988); Edu States v. Board United may privileged An author not be a inter 378, City Chicago, 717 F.2d cation writings, interpreta his preter of his but (7th Cir.1983); Justice v. 382 Officers for weight. Judges tion is entitled to some Comm’n, 1092, F.2d 1094 934 Civil Service of the con rarely are the actual authors Neeb, (9th Cir.1991); v. 644 F.2d Brown (other) they sign that or the sent decrees (6th Cir.1981). 551, 12 Not all 558 n. they approve, having that but settlements County v. Al agree, courts see of Suffolk they may present at the creation (2d corn, 131, Cir.2001); Hol 266 F.3d 137 meaning of the de insights have into the Corrections, Jersey Dept. land v. New that are denied to cree or other settlement (3d Cir.2001), 267, though 277-78 246 F.3d appellate judges who review the disagreement. their they explain not do (Or not; may their re judge’s decision. extending principle to a Support for may cursory, but we trust view have been approved by judge though settlement circum them not to claim to remember the in a formal consent de incorporated of the formation of a settlement stances principle logic cree—the embraces not.) agreement they if do may Meyer Op found in v. that be case— Management Corp., 764 F.2d penheimer In holding that a consent decree is (2d Cir.1985); 76, (concurring id. at 88 80 contract, essentially as a interpreted to be FBI, v. 922 opinion), and Wilkinson Supreme explicit that “the Court (9th 555, Cir.1991), on F.2d 559 overruled surrounding the formation circumstances ground, Hagestad Tragesser, v. 49 another of the consent order were [=contract]” (9th Cir.1995), though a F.3d 1430 state among on which the aids princi the extension of the denying ment ITT rely. the court could United States v. found, ple agreements to settlement but Co., Baking 420 Continental U.S. elaboration, States v. without United (The (1975). 926, 95 S.Ct. 43 L.Ed.2d 148 (7th Motors, 770, 305 F.3d Cir. Rand to a analysis applies equal with force set 2002). If circum agreement.) those tlement here, judge are known to the at first applicable is not stances principle hand, interpretation comes to the re Although judge’s order that his however. weight. But the viewing court with added appealed enforcing from was an order (1995). 810, Rptr.2d for deferential review fails when rationale But then there judge’s as in case the decision does has to something, supplied by this be other interpretation of agree- not turn on his language agreement or sometimes approved. that ment he context, extrinsic evidence to tie the language to the circumstances out of which matter; easy No it is an case. Dru parties’ dispute arose. See Neverko only at wants us to look Fredericks, vec 337, 74 Cal.App.4th itself, and not the “whereas” Cal.Rptr.2d (1999); 865-67 Winet v. it. clauses introduce We decline the Price, 4 Cal.App.4th 6 Cal.Rptr.2d language acontextually invitation. To read (1992); Abdul-Baki, Atalla v. is an almost certain route to error. AM *4 (4th Cir.1992). 189, F.2d 193 That some Int’l, Graphic Management Inc. v. Associ thing supplied by the “whereas” claus Inc., (7th ates, 44 F.3d 577 Cir. es, which made clear that the release con 1995); Repression City Alliance to End v. cerned disputes the that had arisen out of (7th 1007, Chicago, 742 F.2d 1013 Cir. management the contract Sycuan for the 1984) (en banc). Especially when the con tribe’s casino. supplied by very text is the document that being interpreted. Any is interpretation “whereas” other produce would results, that the clauses indicate context of the absurd good which is a reason for parties’ declining release is the settlement of the an invitation to read contractual (or constitutional) dispute, part second of their the part statutory, con or language Well, cerning Sycuan literally, the tribe’s casino. as we had occasion to note recent Dru, case, replies why ly Ltd., if that’s the didn’t in FutureSource v. LLC Reuters (7th Cir.2002). parties just 281, the “except regarding insert 312 F.3d 284-85 At $275,000” in part argument the lawyer we asked Dru’s whether document? The answer is that this would the release prevent would Foufas from implied any dispute have that other suing battery the Dru for if punched have, future, parties might now or in in eye, surprise Foufas the and to our release, subject lawyer would be to the even if it said that it imagine would. We can tribe, nothing Sycuan had to do with the parties rising from the ta settlement $275,000 Foufas, only because issue had and Dru telling ble “Now that release, you’ve signed excluded. I can do with (and impunity immunity) what I’ve been Dru misunderstands the architecture wanting long to do for a time—and that is a releasing language release. The must be in punch you (according the face.” And cannot, very party that by broad so a lawyer) Dru’s Foufas couldn’t sue. merely refiling his claim or in recasting it legal other or embellishing terms it with Enough said. facts, escape

new force the release. Affirmed. The breadth of the release in this uncharacteristic, case is least RIPPLE, Judge, concurring. Circuit governed releases like this one Califor and, join judgment I with the reser- See, Barwick, e.g., nia law. v. Vahle here, expressed opinion vation 1323, 793, Cal.App.4th Cal.Rptr.2d court. (2001); 794-95 Wilshire-Doheny Associ ates, I Shapiro, Cal.App.4th prudence expressing, Ltd. v. doubt the (2000); dicta, Cal.Rptr.2d admittedly a Parsons what is view on the Tickner, 31 Cal.App.4th appropriate degree 37 Cal. of deference owed the ap- judge who the trial myAs agreement. the settlement

proved note, entirely the issue is not

colleagues doubt, is not nec- and resolution from

free All case. too this

essary to the decision treated as

often, this sort dicta of cases, a result in later principle

settled of stare our doctrines

incompatible with and often a destruc- precedent

decisis collegial in our deliberations.

tive force

Here, precaution my colleagues take the dicta and not- the discussion as labeling controlling it not a explicitly that

ing today. It will be in our decision

element to heed panels of future responsibility cautionary language. *5 join my col- respects, I

In all other analysis problem be-

leagues’ fíne

fore us. EQUIPMENT SERVICES,

LINC

INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, SERVICES,

SIGNAL MEDICAL

INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-3449. Appeals,

United States Court

Seventh Circuit.

Argued Dec. 2002.

Decided Feb. 2003.

Rehearing Denied March 2003. Borst, Darcy T. D. Alexander

Vincent IL, Borst, Chicago, (argued), Askounis & Plaintiff-Appellant. for Ferrini, T. I. Michae- James Barbara Miller, (argued), lides Clausen IL, Defendant-Appellee.