# United Stat es Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 A rg ued Septem ber21 , 20 09 Dec i ded Decem ber14 , 20 09

B efo re R IC H A R D D . C U D A H Y , Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cu i tJudg e JO H N D A N IE L T IN D E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 09

- 1050 JO H N W . C H W A R Z Y N SK I, P laint if f-A ppell ant,

v . R O B E R T T E B B E N S, etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s, Eas te r n Di vi si o n. N o. 07C 210 2 Ro na l d A. Guz m an, J udg e . O R D E R On A pri l 16 , 20 07, J ohn Chw ar zynsk i, then- Pres i dent ofChica go Fi re Fi ghter s Un i on L ocal 2 ( th e “U nion ”), fil ed suit on beh alfof th e U nion against ten exec ut ive board m em bers (coll ectively the ”L ocal de fend an ts”) and the Intern ational A ssociation of Fi re Fi ghter s a nd f our ofi ts offi cer s ( col l ecti vel y the “Inter nati onaldef endants”) f oral l ege d v i o l a t i o n s o fR I C O , fe d e r a l l a b o r l a ws , th e C h i c a g o f a l s e c l a i ms a c t, a n d s t a t e t o r tl a w. These char ges f al l i nto tw o pri nci pal cl ass es ofal l ega ti ons: thatthe Local def endants defr auded the Cityand the U ni on by r equesti ng sa l ar y a nd expenses f oract i vi ti es they neveri ntended to com ple te, and that Local and I nter nati onaldef endants co nspir ed to NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y i n acco rdance w i th F ed. R. App. P. 32 .1N o. 09

- 1050 Page 2

pros ecute f al se disc i pli nary char ges ag ai nst Chw ar zynsk i wh i l e f ai l i ng to pro secute leg itim at e c h ar ge s a ga in st L oc al d efe n d an t T eb b en s t o c ov er u p th eir frau d

. Earl y i n the l i ti gat i on, the defe nd ants and the di str i ct c ourtbo th to l d C hw ar zynsk i t h a tth e s u i tc o u l d n o tb e fi l e d i n th e n a me o fth e U n i o n a n d th a tmo s to fth e c l a i ms ass er ted were l ega l l y unf ounded

. I n the f ace ofthe cour t’ s a dvic e, Chw ar zynsk i so l die re d o n f o r mor e th ane i g htmonths ( ev en tu al l y s ubs ti tu ti nghi m se l fa s so l e pl ai nt i f f ) , unt i l he fi na l l y di smi ss ed th e ac ti o n v o l unt ar i l y i n De ce m be r 2 00 7. I n r es po ns e to a mot i o n b y the defen dan ts , the di st r i ctc o ur t i m po se d s an ct i o ns i n the a m o unto f$ 15 , 34 2. 25 j o i nt l y a nd seve rall y against Ch w arzyn ski and his attorne y, Jam es M ah er, un d er F ED . R. C IV . P. 11 a nd 28 U .S.C . § 19 27

. Ch wa r z y ns k i a pp e a l e d the s a nc t i o ns o r de r t o thi s c o ur t, b utMah e r di d n o t . On M ar ch 17, 20 09, thi s co urt i ssued an o rderco nfi rm i ng tha t the appeal i s l i m i ted to a re vi ew ofthe sancti ons or der a gai nst pl ai nti f fChw ar zynsk i o nl y. H ad att or ney M aherwanted to ap p ea l th e s an c tio n s o rd er ag ain st h im , he w ou ld h av e h ad to file h is ow n n ot ice of ap p ea l. Sin c e M ah er d id n ot file a n ot ice of ap p ea l, th e d efe n d an ts p ro c ee d to co llec t t h e fu ll $15, 324. 25 fi ne fro m Liber ty M utual S urety, wh i ch pai d on a bond that i t had i ssued o n M ah er ’s b eh alf. A cas e i s m oo t “ w hen the i ssues pre sente d are no l onge r l i ve orthe parti es l ack a l ega l l y c ogni zabl e i nter esti n the outco m e. ” Pow e l l v. M cCor m ac k, 395 U

. S. 486, 496 (1969 ). Se e U nited Sta tes v. B a lint, 201 F. 3d 928, 93 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( fi nd i ng tha t the paym ent o f re sti tuti on by so m e j oi ntl y a nd se ver al l y l i abl e defendants r endered m oo t the appeal o f o th erj o i nt l y a nd s ev er al l y l i ab l e defen dan ts c ha l l en g i ngthe o r derf o r r es ti tu ti o n)

. W i ththe fi ne pai d, Ch w ar zynsk i ’ s m onet ar y i nter esti n thi s a pp ealdi sappeare d. A nd thi s co urt has r epe at edl y he l d tha t i t i s appr o pr i at e to l i m i t appe al s o fs an ct i o ns o r der s to s i tu at i o ns in vo lvin g m on et ar y s an c tio n s o n ly. E .g., Seym ourv. H ug, 485 F.3d 926 , 929 (7th C ir. 2007). Even i fthi s co urt coul d rul e i n f avo r ofChw ar zynsk i, he woul d have no co gni zabl e i nter est i n the outco m e. I n re sponse to a r equest f orsupplem entalbr i efi ng o n thi s i ssue, Chw ar zynsk i st ate s that: M r. C h w ar zy n sk i’s in te re st cle ar ly d iffer s fro m th at of h is c ou n se l be c au se if M r . Chwar zy ns k i pr ev ai l s o n thi s appe alhe wi l l pe r so na l l y c o l l ec t th e am ou nt of th e san ction aw ard i n th e sum of $15,324.25 from his coun sel’s m alp ra c tic e in su ra n c e c ar rie r in se tt lem en t o f h is leg al m alp ra c tic e c laim ag ain st h is c ou n se l.N o. 09

- 1050 Page 3

( Citi ng the Rel eas e Agree m ent b etween M r. Chw ar zynsk i and Libe rty M utual I nsurance Com pany. ) Chw ar zynsk i ’ s pos sibl e m al pract i ce c l ai m ag ai nst M aheri m pli cate s a se parat e dispute between hi m and hi s l aw yer . A party c annot est abl i sh an i nter esti n one case by m aking sep arate con tractu al obl igations con tingen t on its outc om e. W e m us t the refore rej ect Ch w ar zynsk i ’ s a tte m pt to ke ep thi s ca se al i ve by re f er ence to a co l l ate ra l pro ceedi ng. W e no te i n passi ng tha t i t i s no t e ven cl earthatChw ar zynsk i ’ s s uccess o n thi s a pp eal w oul d tri gge r the Rel eas e Agree m ent pr ovi si on, si nce that a gr eem ent r equi re s Ch w ar zynsk i to o ver turn the sa ncti ons aw ar d and avoi d l i abi l i ty f orpaym ent o fthat awar d. Buttha t i s o fno i m m edi at e i m po r ta nc e. W i ththe fi ne ful l y pa i d, Chwar zy ns k i no l onge r has a ny l ega l l y c ogni zabl e i nter esti n thi s a pp eal

. W e there f or e D ISMISSi t a s m oo t.