The status of a pro se litigant may be taken into account, but sanctions may still be imposed.
Vukadinovich, 901 F.2d at 1445. “[W]hen a layman persists in a hopeless cause long after it should
have been clear to him, as a reasonable (though not law-trained) person, that his cause of action was
indeed hopeless, sanctions should be imposed.” See Bacon v. American Fed’n of State, County, and
Municipal Employees Council, # 1,795 F.2d 33, 35 (7th Cir. 1986).

Based on the above facts, Defendants’ Motions for Sanctions are granted. The Plaintiffs are
sanctioned the reasonable costs of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by the Defendants in preparing
their Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, in preparing their reply in support of such motion,
and in preparing their motions for sanctions. Defendants shall submit a petition for the reasonable
fees and costs incurred by the parties in preparing their motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint,
in preparing their reply in support of such motion, and in preparing their motions for sanctions by

May 10, 2002. Any response to the petition shall be filed on or before May 24, 2002. Ruling will

be by mail. if
Dated: 4 uf 25, 200 2— S £ st44—

JOHN W. DARRAH
-United States District Judge


=

Min~* ee Form (06097)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge John W. Darrah than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 967 DATE 4/23/2002
CASE GEORGE B. DEMES vs. ABN AMRO SERAVICES CO.
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION: of the motion being presented.)

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) o Brief in support of motion due

(63) ao Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due.

(4) im Ruling/Hearing on set for at

(5) im} Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at.

(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] {set for/re-set for] on set for at ‘

(7) im} Trial[set for/re-set for] on at

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

CUFRCP4(m) (General Rule2i CIFRCP41(a)(1) COFRCP41(a)(2).

(10) WM [Otherdocketentry] Status hearing held and continued to 6/26/02 at 9:00 a.m. Enter Memorandum
Opinion And Order. Defendants’ motions for sanctions are granted. The plaintiffs are sanctioned the
reasonable costs of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by the defendants in preparing their motion to
dismiss the amended complaint, in preparing their reply in support of such motion, and in preparing their
motions for sanctions. Defendants shall submit a petition for the reasonable fees and costs by May 10,
2002. Any response to the petition shall be filed by 5/24/02. Ruling will be by mail.

(il) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

. ited.
‘No notices require umber of notices

APR 2 5 2002

4 feputh initiats

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone,

wv | Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

date mailed notice

courtroom
deputy’s
initials

LG

Daig/time.received in, | -f
central Clerk’s Office

railing deputy initials



Ay

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

GEORGE B. DEMES and HELEN M. DEMES,

Plaintiffs,
No. 01 C 0967
v.
Judge John W. Darrah
ABN AMRO SERVICES CO., INC., as successor to
LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as
successor to COLUMBIA BANK OF CHICAGO;
DAVID ADDIS, Esquire; JAMES D. THOMPSON;
DOLORES SAROVICH, individually and as
Trustee under Trust Agreement dated

March 8, 1990; and FIRST MIDWEST TRUST CO.,
successor to HERITAGE TRUST CO.,

DOCKETED
APR 2 5 2002

See Se eS SH Se SS SOS SD

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On May 23, 2001, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ pro se complaint without prejudice. The
Court found that Plaintiffs’ Fair Debt and Collection Practices Act claim and Truth in Lending Act
claim were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Court also found that Plaintiffs failed
to sufficiently plead their RICO claim. The pending state law claims were also dismissed due to no
other pending federal claims.

On August 30, 2001, this Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate the Dismissal Order. The
Court also granted Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint “if plaintiffs can do so consistent
with their obligations under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 11".

On September 13, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a pro se amended complaint that included the same

claims as their original complaint. Qn November 2, 2001, Defendants sent Plaintiffs a letter


explaining that their amended complaint violated Rule 11 because all of the claims were barred by
the doctrine of res judicata. Defendants asked Plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss the action to avoid
possible sanctions, Plaintiffs refused to voluntarily dismiss the amended complaint. On January
8, 2002, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint
with prejudice based on the doctrine of res judicata.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires the court to impose sanctions on a party or an
attorney that signs a pleading or a motion which is not well grounded in fact and warranted by
existing law. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 11; Vukadinovich v. McCarthy, 901 F.2d 1439, 1445 (7th Cir.
1990) (Vukadinovich). Sanctions have been awarded when a party ignores or fails to investigate the
doctrine of res judicata. See Hidden Cove Marina, Inc. v. Village of Fox Lake, 1986 WL 15266
(N.D. Hl. Dec. 30, 1986).

In the instant case, Plaintiffs’ first complaint was dismissed by the Court. Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint containing the same allegations as the previous complaint. The amended
complaint was dismissed on grounds of res judicata. While the original complaint was not
dismissed on the same grounds, the Plaintiffs were aware of the possibility that their claims could
be barred through the Defendants’ letter to the Plaintiffs and the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. The Plaintiffs were also forewarned by the Court that any amended complaint
must be filed consistent with Rule 11. Furthermore, as noted above, Defendants notified Plaintiffs
of the bar of res judicata to re-pleading the allegations of the dismissed complaint. Plaintiffs fail to
indicate in their response to the Motion for Sanctions if they, at a minimum, investigated the
possibility that the claims were barred by res judicata after receiving Defendants’ letter that fully

explained the doctrine and its application to the amended complaint.