United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued September 21, 2009

Decided December 14, 2009

Before

RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

 DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

 JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 09-1050

JOHN W. CHWARZYNSKI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT TEBBENS, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 07 C 2102

Ronald A. Guzman,

Judge.

O R D E R

On April 16, 2007, John Chwarzynski, then-President of Chicago Fire Fighters Union

Local 2 (the “Union”), filed suit on behalf of the Union against ten executive board

members (collectively the ”Local defendants”) and the International Association of Fire

Fighters and four of its officers (collectively the “International defendants”) for alleged

violations of RICO, federal labor laws, the Chicago false claims act, and state tort law.

These charges fall into two principal classes of allegations: that the Local defendants

defrauded the City and the Union by requesting salary and expenses for activities they

never intended to complete, and that Local and International defendants conspired to

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 09-1050 Page 2

prosecute false disciplinary charges against Chwarzynski while failing to prosecute

legitimate charges against Local defendant Tebbens to cover up their fraud. 

Early in the litigation, the defendants and the district court both told Chwarzynski

that the suit could not be filed in the name of the Union and that most of the claims

asserted were legally unfounded. In the face of the court’s advice, Chwarzynski soldiered

on for more than eight months (eventually substituting himself as sole plaintiff), until he

finally dismissed the action voluntarily in December 2007. In response to a motion by the

defendants, the district court imposed sanctions in the amount of $15,342.25 jointly and

severally against Chwarzynski and his attorney, James Maher, under FED. R. CIV. P. 11 and

28 U.S.C. § 1927. 

Chwarzynski appealed the sanctions order to this court, but Maher did not. On

March 17, 2009, this court issued an order confirming that the appeal is limited to a review

of the sanctions order against plaintiff Chwarzynski only. Had attorney Maher wanted to

appeal the sanctions order against him, he would have had to file his own notice of appeal.

Since Maher did not file a notice of appeal, the defendants proceed to collect the full

$15,324.25 fine from Liberty Mutual Surety, which paid on a bond that it had issued on

Maher’s behalf. 

A case is moot “when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a

legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969).

See United States v. Balint, 201 F.3d 928, 936 (7th Cir. 2000) (finding that the payment of

restitution by some jointly and severally liable defendants rendered moot the appeal of

other jointly and severally liable defendants challenging the order for restitution). With the

fine paid, Chwarzynski’s monetary interest in this appeal disappeared. And this court has

repeatedly held that it is appropriate to limit appeals of sanctions orders to situations

involving monetary sanctions only. E.g., Seymour v. Hug, 485 F.3d 926, 929 (7th Cir. 2007).

Even if this court could rule in favor of Chwarzynski, he would have no cognizable interest

in the outcome.

In response to a request for supplemental briefing on this issue, Chwarzynski states

that:

Mr. Chwarzynski’s interest clearly differs from that of his counsel because if

Mr. Chwarzynski prevails on this appeal he will personally collect the

amount of the sanction award in the sum of $15,324.25 from his counsel’s

malpractice insurance carrier in settlement of his legal malpractice claim

against his counsel.
No. 09-1050 Page 3

(Citing the Release Agreement between Mr. Chwarzynski and Liberty Mutual Insurance

Company.) Chwarzynski’s possible malpractice claim against Maher implicates a separate

dispute between him and his lawyer. A party cannot establish an interest in one case by

making separate contractual obligations contingent on its outcome. We must therefore

reject Chwarzynski’s attempt to keep this case alive by reference to a collateral proceeding.

We note in passing that it is not even clear that Chwarzynski’s success on this appeal

would trigger the Release Agreement provision, since that agreement requires

Chwarzynski to overturn the sanctions award and avoid liability for payment of that

award. But that is of no immediate importance. With the fine fully paid, Chwarzynski no

longer has any legally cognizable interest in this appeal. We therefore DISMISS it as moot.