## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 3264 M ARLE EN M. L A P LA NT, in d ivid u ally and on behal fo fa cl ass , P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. T HE N ORT HWE S T ERN M UT UAL L IF E I NSURANCE C OMPAN Y, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 11- C- 910

—L ynnA delm an, Ju dge .
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 31, 2012

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 28, 2012

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd F L A UM a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . N or th w es te rn M u tu al s old a n a n n u i t y c o n t r a c t, w h i c h th e pa r t i e s c a l la “ P r e - MN annuity, ” t o appr oxi m ate l y 3 6, 000 perso ns. Of these , som e 3,000 l ive in W iscons in. I n 19 85 N o r t h w estern M utua lc ha ng ed th e m etho d i t used to c al cul at e th e an -2 N o. 12

- 3264 nuit ants’ annualdi vi dend
. The annui tants co ntend that th i s ch an ge vi o l at es the t er m s o fthe a nnui tyc o ntr acts , bo th subst anti vel y a nd with r espectto the noti ce N or thw est er n M utual m ust g i ve i ts custo m er s. This i s no t the fi rs t cl ass act i on fi l ed b y the annui tants
. I n 2 0 0 1 the l a wy e r s wh o t o da y r e pr e s e ntMar l een LaPlant, o ur r epres entat i ve pla i nti ff, fi l ed sui t in a W i sconsin s ta te cour t s eek i ng to r epres ent a l lannui tants th roug hou t th e nat ion. T he j ud ge d eclined to certify th at c las s, ru lin g am on g oth er th in gs th at (a) a c laim f ordam age s cr eat es i nd i vi du ali ssues t hat m ake cl ass tr eat m ent i m prudent, and ( b) a nati on al c l ass i s no t m an ag ea b l e g i ve n d iffer en c es in t h e s ta te law ap p licab l e t o the p o l i c i e s , a pp r o xi mat e l y 4 5 % o fwh i ch conta i n c hoi ce- of

- l aw cl auses speci fyi ng appl i cati on of the l a w i n the a nn ui t a nt s ’ ho me s t a t e , r a the r than W i scon si n, wh er e Northwester n M utual i s incor pora ted an d h as its h ea d q u ar te rs . N o o na n v . N o rthw estern Mu t u a l L i

f e In s u r a n c eCo
. , 298 W is. 2d 247 (Ct. A p p . 2006), affi r m ed th atde ci si o n. The c ur r en t su i t, r efl ec tingthe lim its es ta b lish ed inNoonan , i ni ti al l y p ro posed a cl ass l i m i te d t o a nnui ta nt s who l i ve i n W is co ns i n a nd s o ug ht on ly a d ec la r a t o r y j u d gm en t t h atth e 1 98 5 c h an ge is i nval i d. A decl ar ato ryj u d gm ent in f avo r ofthe cl ass coul d be f ol l owed byi nd i vi du alsui ts see ki ng dam age s. The W i sco nsi n-o nl y s uitwas cer ti fi ed as a cl ass act i on a nd t r i e d t o the c o ur t( s i nc e t he o nly p r o po s e d r e med y was a de cl ar at o r y jud gm en t)
. J udg e Denni s J
. F l y nn rul ed in p lainti ff s’ f avo r, i ssui ng a sw eepi ng deci si on decl ar i ng tha t Northwester n M utual vi ol ate d the annui tyN o. 12

- 3264 3 contr acts , br eached i ts fi du ci ar y d u tie s, and shoul d pay s u b st an tia l co m p en sa to ry an d p u n itiv e d am ag es . Pl ant [s i c ]v . Nor t hwes t e r n M u t u al L i fe In s u r an c eCo
. , No. 0 8- CV11 98 8 ( C ir. Ct
. M i l wauk ee Co unty M ar . 7, 2 01 1)
. The cl ass then am ended it s c om p laint to see k dam age s for al lannui tants i n eve ryst ate
. C on te n d in g t h at th e a m en d m en t b ro u gh t t h e s u it w i thi n the sco pe ofthe Cla ss A cti on F ai rnes s Act, 28 U. S
. C. § § 1 3 3 2 ( d) , 14 5 3 , No r thwe s t e r n M utua lfi l e d a noti ce o fr em ova l
. LaPl ant a ske d the di str i ct c ourtto re m and, re l yi ng o n §14 53( d), wh i ch say s that the A ct “s ha l lno t apply t o a ny c l as s ac ti o n that so l ely i nvol ves

— . . . ( 2) a cl ai m thatr el ate s t o the inter nal affa irs o r gov er nance o fa cor pora ti on o r othe r f or m o f bus i ne ss e nt er pr i se a nd a r i se s unde ro rb y v i r tu e o fthe law s o f th e St at e in w h ich su c h co rp or at ion or b u sine ss enterpr i se i s incor pora ted o r or gani zed”. ( Se cti on 1332 ( d)( 9) ( B) c ontain s a m ate ri al l y i denti calpro vi si on f o r su i ts fi l ed i ni ti al l y i n fede r al co ur t. ) LaP l ant m aintained that the s uit“r el ate s t o the int er nalaff ai rs ” o f N orthw estern M u tu al becau se th e po li cyh olders of a m ut ua l insu rer have an ow ne rship i nt erest in i ts governa nc e and pr o fi ts
. Nor th wes te r n Mutua lr epl i ed th atthe su it rel ate s t o the a nnuityco ntra cts, notto i ts i nter nal a ffair s, an d th at atall ev en ts th e s u it d oe s n ot“s ole ly involve[]” W iscons in’s corpora te law , given th e ch oice-of

l aw cl auses that led to N oonan ’ s deci si on a gainst cer ti fyi ng a nati onalcl ass . T h e d ist ric t c ou rtrem an d ed th e s u it. 20 12 U .S. D ist . L EXIS 1168 72 ( E.D. W i s. A ug. 20 , 20 12)
. The j ud ge obs er ved that4 N o. 12

- 3264 th e a p p ella te d ec isio n inNo o n an h ad nothel d that m ul t i pl e s t a t e s ’ l a ws a pp l y b ut ha d c o nc l ud e d o nly t hat the s tat e t ri alj u dge had not abused hi s di scr eti on in so hol di ng . De e mi ng the s t a t e t r i a l j ud g e ’ s de c i s i on o n th a tp o i ntn o tb i nd i ng, the fe de r a ldi s t r i c tj ud ge dec l ar ed th atthe c hoi ce - o f

- l aw c l au se s ar e i nv al i d a nd th at W isc on sin law ap p lies to th e p olic yh old er s in ev ery s tat e. The di str i ct j ud ge al so concl ud ed that all disputes co ncer ni n g p ol i ci es i ssued bya m utual i nsurer re l ate to thati nsurer ’ s inter nalaffairs , so that§1 453( d)( 2) requ ires a rem a n d
. W e acce p ted N orthw estern M ut ua l’ s p etition forperm issi on to ap p eal. See 28 U
. S. C
. §1453 (c)( 1). The a ppl i ca ti o n o f §1 45 3( d) ( 2) i n l i ti g at i o n c o ncer ni ng a W i sco nsi n cor pora ti on has t h e pot enti alto cre ate ano m al i es. The i nter n al

- aff ai rs doctr i ne i s “ a co nfl i cto fl aws pr i nc i pl e whi chr ecogni ze s th ato nl y o ne St ate sho uld have the author i ty to re gul ate a cor pora tion’s in t erna l affai rs

— m at te r s pec ul i art o the r el at i o nsh i ps amongo rb etwee n th e cor po r at i o n a nd i ts c ur r en t off icers, directors, and share hold ers

—because o ther w i se a c or p or at ion co u ld b e f a c ed w ith co n flict in g d em an d s.” E dg a r v. M ITE C o rp . , 45 7 U.S
. 62 4, 64 5 ( 198 2). S ee al so A ther ton v. FD IC, 519 U
. S. 213, 223 ( 1997 )
. Se cti on 1 453( d)( 2) re fl ects the vi ew that, wh en j ust o ne st ate ’ s l aw appli es t o a na t i o nwi de c l a s s , a s t a t e c o ur t c a n pr o v i de a sa ti sf actory res ol uti on. Y et W i sco nsi n does not unif or m l y e m plo y th e i nt erna l

- aff ai r s do ct r i ne . I n Bel oi tLi q ui dat i ng Tru s tv. Grad e, 270 W is. 2d 356 (W is. 2004), th e Sup rem e C ou rt o fW i sc o ns i n a ppl i ed W i sc o ns i n l aw to a s ui t co nce r ni ngthe i nt erna la ff ai r s o faDe law ar e co r po r at i o n. N or thw est er n M utual does not c on tend, however, thatN o. 12

- 3264 5

a st at e’ s ado pti o n o fthe i nt erna l- aff ai r s do ct r i ne i s es se nti al to a re m and under §145 3( d)( 2) , w hi ch ask s w h et her the di spute “rel ate s t o” i nter nalaff ai rs and not w hat l aw the s ta te c o ur t wi l la ppl y (ap art, tha t i s, fr o m the “solely” l an gu age). T h e p ar tie s d o, h ow ev er , d i s p u te h ow w e s h ou ld re sol ve uncert ai nti es about w hethera parti cul arsuit r e l a t e s t o i nt e r na laff ai r s . T he di s t r i c tc o ur tc o nc l ud e d, and the c l a s s c o nt e nd s , tha t“ r e l a t e s t o ” s ho ul d b e r ead br o adl y a nd tha t th e ex i st en ce o fo th eri ss ue s ( he r e, the i nter preta ti on o fthe contr acts ) sho uld notpre vent a re m and. N or thw est er n M utual se es the word “s ol el y” as defe at in g a br oad r eadi ng o f“r el ate s t o”. A l though a t l eas t o ne ci rcui t has held thatthe sta tutory l anguage re fl ects a prefer ence f orr em and to sta te cour t, se e Gre e nwic h F i nan ci al Se r vi ces D i s t r e s s e d M or tgageFu nd 3 L LC v. Count rywid eFi nan ci al C o rp ., 603 F.3d 23, 29 (2d Cir. 20 10 ) , th i s ci r cui t’ s appr o ac h i s to r ea d the exc ept i o ns i n §13 32( d) a nd §1 453( d) without a pre sum pti on for ei therrem anding orr eta i ni ng j uri sdic ti on. W e t ryto gi ve the s tatutor y l anguage a natura lm eani n g i n l i ght o fi ts c on te x t, w ith ou t a th u m b on th e s c ale . See , e.g., Appe r tv. M organ St anl ey Dean Witter, Inc . , 673 F.3d 609 ( 7thCir. 20 12 ); Katz v. Ge r ar di, 552 F.3d 558 ( 7th Cir. 2009). Con g r es s di d no t d efi ne “ i nt erna la ff ai r s” , b ut ne ither d id it si gn al a d ep artu re fr om that term ’s ordinary m ea n in g, w h ich th e Su p re m e C ou rtres ta te d inEdgar : “m att er s pecul i arto the re l ati onshi ps am ong orbetw een th e co r poratio n a nd i ts c ur r en t o ffi ce r s, di r ec to r s, a nd shar ehol ders”
. By that sta nd ar d, LaPlant ’ s cl ai m does not6 N o. 12

- 3264

r el at e to Nor th wes te r n M utua l ’ s i nt erna la ff ai r s. The su i t do es no t i nv o l ve the i den ti tyo ra utho r i ty ofthe fi rm ’ s o ffi cer s o r dir ecto rs , and the annuit ants ar e no t shar ehol ders. Tr ue , p o l i c y ho l de r s i n a mutua lha v e “ o wne r s hi p” i nter est s, b u t that i s no t e nough. H ol ders ofco rpor ate bonds al so have own er shi p i nter est s, es peci al l y when th e issuer d oes not pa y t h e p rom ised return ( th e very sor t o fcla i m L aPl ant m ake s)
. Yet disputes betw een c or pora ti ons and th eir cr edi tor s r egul ar l y a re r eso l ved und er the l aw o fco ntra ct; theyar e no t thought ofas di sputes abou t intern al corporat e aff airs. A n nu ity poli cies are effec ti vel y de btc o nt r ac ts , a nd thi s su i t depe nds o n the te rm s o f p ro m ise s t h at N or th w es te rn M u tu al m ad e in the “ Pre- M N annui ti es. ” M oneydue u nd era contr act i s no t a di vi dend f orco rpor ate
- l aw purposes , no m att er whatthe c o nt r ac t ca ll s i t. In c o r po r at e l aw, a di vi den d is discretiona ry w ith th e board
. Th e ann uitan ts are e n t it le d to be pa id, not to a rol e in N orthw estern M utual ’ s co rpor ate go ver nance. One l ogi cali m pli cation o fhol ding that a di spute be twe ena nnui ta nt s an d m ut ua li ns ur er s r el at es t o the i nsurer ’ s inter nalaff ai rs would be that any di sp ute abou t the m ean ing of anyo fthe i ss u er ’s pol i ci es re l ate s to the firm ’s int erna l affai rs

— for hold ers of stan d ard pol i ci es, no l ess than hol ders ofannui ti es, have r em ote “o wner sh i p” i nt er es ts in m utua li ns ur er s. Ye t su i ts abo ut the m eani ng o fan a d ve rti si ng- i nj ury cove ra ge, o r an excl usi on for in tenti onalto rt s, ar e deci ded ev er y day w i thout eith er j ud ge orl i ti gants drea m i ng tha t they ne edN o. 12

- 3264 7 to un d erstan d or ad d ress corp orate la w . Th ese are disputes abo ut the pol i ci es, r eso l ved und eri n su ra nce l aw r atherthan the M odelBu siness Cor pora ti ons A ct and the inter nal

- aff ai rs doctrine
. J ust s o w i th di sputes a b o u t th e m ea n in g of a n n u ity co n tr ac ts . A co u rtsh ou ld proce ed in t h i s s uitthe sam e way i t would i fthe i ssuer wer e a f o r - pr o fi t i ns ur erwi ths hare s tr ade d o n the N ew York Stock Ex ch an ge ra t h e r than a m ut ua l insu rer. Ju d ge Flyn n relie d on N ew Y or k a n d W isc on sin i n s u r a n c e l a w a n d s e v e r a ls t a t e s ’ l a ws ab o u tma r k e t i ng but sc ar cel y m enti on ed W i sco nsi n’s co rpor ate l aw . That p retty m uc h sh ow s tha t this d ispu te d o e s not con cern th e intern al affai rs of a W iscons in c o r p o r ation. W ha t’s m o r e , th e c las s re lies h ea vily on W is. St at . §63 2.6 2, a p ro vis ion co ve rin g h ow “p ar tic ip at in g” p olic ies sh ar e in d ivi sible s u r p lus. Section 632.62 i s p art of W iscons in’s i nsurance code r atherthan i ts cor pora te code. T h e a n n u ita n ts are en tit led to th e fu l l m ea su re of th eir r i g ht s no matt erthe issuer ’ s fi na nc i als tructur e, b ut u n d er co n tr ac t la w an d ins u ra n c e l a w (an d p ot en tia lly secur i ti es l aw , since annui ti es c an b e s ecuri ti es i fnot re gul ate d a s i nsurance pol i ci es , see SE Cv. U nite d B ene fi t L i fe In s u r an c eCo
. , 38 7 U.S
. 20 2 ( 1967 ) ) r atherthan co r po r at e l aw. La Pl an t and the c l as s ha ve no t ci te d a ny d ecision, by an y state cou rt, ap p lyi ng the intern al- affai rs doctr i ne t o cl ai m s byannui tants bas ed on pro m i ses m ade i n thei r pol i ci es, and w e concl ud e that § 1453 ( d)( 2) does not apply. The c ho i ce - o f

- l aw c l au se s f o und in abo ut4 5% o fthe a nn ui t i e s r e fl e ct the i rs t a t us a s r e g ul a t e d ins ur a nc e p r o d-8 N o. 12

- 3264 ucts. M any s tat es re quir e ins u ra n c e poli ci es to be g ove r ne d b y the l a w o fthe s t a t e in whi c h the i ns ur e d l i ves ( orthe pol i cy i s i ssu ed ) r atherthan the l aw o fthe sta te inw h ich th e in su re r is in c or p or at ed . A n d if m u ltip le sta tes ’ l aw appli es, thi s l i ti gat i on ca nnot be r eso lved “solely” u nd er W iscons in’s corpo rate law even i f it w ere w i thi n the sco pe ofthe i nter nal

- aff ai rs doctr i ne ( w hi ch, to re peat, i t i sn’ t)
. The di str i ct c ourttho u gh t o ther w i se, p roceed ing in tw o step s. First, i t a p p li ed W iscons in’s com m on- l aw choi ce- of

- l aw pri nci ple s, se e Heath v . Zellm er, 35 W i s. 2d 578 ( 1967 ) , and found that, i n th e absence ofa choi ce- of

- l aw cl ause, W i sco nsi n l aw would apply
. Secon d , i t con clu d e d that any con tract sp ecifyi ng a different s et ofl ega lr ule s i s ineffectualas co ntra ryto th e publ i c po l i cyr efl ec te d i n Heath
. Because the m ain fun ct i o n o fc o nt r ac tu alc ho i ce - o f

- l aw c l au se s i s to s pec ify a bo dy ofl aw o th er t h an the one that w oul d be se l ec te d us i ngc o m m o n- l aw metho ds, the upsh o t o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on i s th at al lchoi ce- of

- l aw cl auses ar e i nv al i d i n W i sc o ns i n. Forthi s s tar tl i ng pro p os iti on the di str i ct c ourtci ted onl y Bus h v
. Nat i onal Scho o l St udi os, Inc . , 13 9 W i s. 2d 63 5, 64 2 ( 1 9 8 7). B ush d ea lt w ith a su it u n d er th e W isc on sin Fai r Deal er shi p Law , wh i ch f orbi ds any c ontr actual d ep artu re fr om i ts p rovisi ons . W is. Stat. §135 .0 25(3). W i sc o ns i n’ s i ns ur an ce l aw l ac k s an y equi va l en t l an gu ag e. B ush ac kn ow l ed ge d th at W isc on sin reg u lar ly en force s ch o i ce - o f

- l aw c l au se s. 1 39 W i s. 2 d a t 64 2, c i ting Je ff er is v. Austin , 182 W is. 20 3, 20 5 (1 92 3); B r o w n v . G a tes , 120 W i s. 34 9 ( 1904 )
. The st ate tr i alco urt deter m i ned that the c hoi ce-o f- l aw cl auses i n thes e v er y c ontr actsN o. 12

- 3264 9

ar e v alid

— an d alt h ou gh th e a p p ella te d ec isi o n in N oonan hel d that thi s r uling w as n ot an abuse o f d iscretion, by L aP lant’s li gh ts w ha t the ap p ell ate cou rt shoul d have hel d i s that the cl au ses ar e inval i d and that a n a t i o na lcla ss the r e f o r e c o ul d h a v e b e e n c e r t i fi e d. W e are not d ispose d to disagree w it h t h e h olding of a W i sco nsi n tr i alco u rt, and the str ong i m pli cati on o f a W i sco nsi n appell ate co urt, o n the val i dity o fthes e p ar tic u lar co n tr ac t u al c lau se s a s a m at te r of W isc on sin l aw . U nd erErieo urt as ki s to r es o l ve a di spu te abo ut sta te l aw the w ay the s tate’s h ighest co urt w oul d res ol ve i t, and our bestas ses sm ent i s that the S up re m e Cour t o f W i sco nsi n w oul d agr ee w i th the approa c h a lre ady ta ken by the s tat e’ s t ri aland appel l ate j ud ges . LaP l an t r el i es o n D r i nkwat e rv. Am e r i ca n Fam i l y M ut ual In s u r an c eCo
. , 29 0 W i s. 2d 64 2 ( 2006 ) , f orthe propos i ti on that choi ce- of

- l aw cl auses can be dee m ed i nval i d even i n the abs en ce o fa s ta tu te s ucha s §135. 025( 3)
. The d isp u te inD r i nkwat erco ncer ned an i nsurer ’ s cl ai m to su brogat ion un d er a cont ract th at gave t h e insu rer a ri ght t o be re p aid fro m an insured’ s t or t r eco ver i es aga inst thi rd part i es. A cl ause i n the contr act poi nted to Iow a l aw , but D rink w a tern on et h ele ss h eld th at W isc on sin law ap p lied u n til th e v ict im

— a ci ti zen of W isc on s i n inj u re d in a n ac c id en t in W isc on sin

— had been m ade wh ol e bythe com bi nati on of i nsurance proc ee d s a n d d am ag es in t or t. O n ly a fte r a m ak e-w h ole re cove ry coul d the contr actual ri ght to subro gat i on k i ck in . W e s aid ea rlier th at m a n y s ta te s in sis t t h atth eir ow n ins ura nc e law , and not th e law of th e insu rer’s h om e s ta te , ap p ly to p olic ies iss u ed in o r f o r t h e b en efit10 N o. 12

- 3264 ofthei r ci ti zens. That’ s whatD rink w a t erc o nc l ude d. And th a ti s a l s o wh a t th e c h o i c e - o f

- l a w c l a u s e s i n th e “ P r e - MN an n u ity ” con tr ac t s p ro vid e. D rink w a ter, wh i ch hel d that th e l aw o fthe i ns ur ed’ s st at e pr ev ai l s o ve rthe l aw o fthe i ns u r e r ’ s ( o re mpl o y e r ’ s ) s t a t e , d o e s n o ts u g g e s tt o us tha tthe S up r e me Co ur to fWisc onsi n wo ul d c o nc l ud e th at th e la w of W isc on sin n ec e s s a r ily go ve rn s a ll annui ti es i ss ue d b y a W i sc o ns i n ins ur er, e ve n ifthe p o l i c i e s th e ms e l v e s an d th e l a w o fth e a n n u i t a n t s ’ h o me st at es pr o vi de o th er wise. (The c l as s do es no t co nt en d th ata ny o th ers ta te ’ s d om esti c l aw wou l d b e r epu g na nt to W iscons in, so tha t p o ten tial li m it on choice-oflaw cla u se s is ina p p lica b le.) This i s a co ntra ct c ase , no t a co rpor ate
- gov er nance case . A nd mul t i pl e s t a t e s ’ l a w a pp l i e s t o the s e c o nt r a c t s. Everyst ate enf or ces prom i ses , but state s d ifferi n how they cal cul ate dam age s a nd wh en ( i fev er ) punitive dam age s a re ava i l abl e forbrea ch ofco ntra ct ( w hi ch the pl ai nti ff s want to r ec as t a s a to rtcl ai m f orbr each o f fi du ci ar y duty)
. S ecti on 1 453( d)( 2) ther ef or e d oes not p er m it a rem a n d , an d th is c las s a c tio n m u st be fina lly resolved i n f e d e r a l cou rt. Th e d istri ct j ud ge m us t d eterm i ne wh etherto cer ti fy a nati onw i de cl ass f ordam age s and, havi ng r eso l ved thatand any othe r proce du ra l i ssue, m ust deci de the case o n the m er i ts. A feder alcourt i nheri ts a rem ove d case i n i ts proce du ra l postur e o n the date o fr em ova l
. W hen thi s ca se w as r e mo v e d , J u d g e F l y n n wa s fr e e t o r e c o n s i d er hi s o wn deci si on

— to c o ns i derno t o nl y whethe ri t was s ubs ta ntively correctbu t also w h e th er the U niform De claratoryN o. 12

- 3264 11 J ud gm ents A ct, wh i ch W i sconsi n has a dopted, W i s. S tat
. §806
. 04, per m i ts the m aneuver b y which the cl ass s o ughtt o g e ta r o un d Noonan ’ s h old in g t h at W isc on sin l a w do e s n o ta l l o w the a nn ui t a nt s t o p ur s ue a c l a s s - wi de cl ai m f ordam age s. The doctr i ne o fl aw o fthe case ther ef o r e do es notpr ev en t th e di st r i ctj udg e fr o m e va l ua ting both s id es’ co ntenti ons. A nd l aw o fthe case does not a p p l y a ta l lo n c e a t r i a lco u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i s o n a p p e a l ; we wi l lb e as fr ee t o revi ew J udg e F l y nn’ s dec i si o n o n the me r i t s ( s h o u l d th e fe d e r a ld i s t r i c tc o u r te n t e ra j u d g men t base d on i t) as we w ou ld b e had the i denti caldeci si on b ee n m ad e init ially b y th e fed er al d ist ric t j u d ge . S e e , e .g., Wil li am s v. C IR , 1 F. 3d 502 (7th C ir. 1993) (a tri al court’s dec i si o n n ev erb i nds a n ap pel l at e co ur t th r o ug h the d octrine of l aw of th e case). V ACA T ED AN D R EMAND ED

12- 6- 12