Minute Order Poem (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Winois

Name of Assigned Judge
Or Moginate Judge James B, Moran then aecleed Sue
CASE NUMBER 02 C 1966 DATE 4/29/2004
CASE CHRISTINE CHAMPLIN, et al vs. BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE CORP.
TITLE

{In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintifY, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.}

MOTION:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DOCKET ENTRY:
ql) QO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) o Brief in support of motion due
(3) iat} Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue___
(4) Qa Ruling/Hearing on setfor___—__att
(5) im) Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set forlon__—_s set for at
(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__——ssetfor_——sat_—
(7) a Trial[set for/re-set for]on___—__ at
(8) a (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__at
(9) a This case is dismissed with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(@n) CLocal Rule 41.1 CFRCP4i(a)(i) O FRCP41(a)(2).
ao) «=f [Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion And Order. We conclude that Colorado law

should be applied to determine compensatory damages.

qi oa (For further detail see order (on reverse side offattached to) the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. a
number of notices

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

wv | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom date mailed notice

LG deputy’s
initials

Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office : mailing deputy initials
ray
C2



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

CHRISTINE CHAMPLIN and
CHARLIE B. ROMSTAD, as joint
personal representatives of the estate of
STELLA RIEHL, deceased,

Plaintiffs,
vs. No. 02 C 1966
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA

FE CORPORATION, a corporation,
et al.,

DOCKETED

APR 3 0 2004

wee SS HS SH SH HH HL

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The defendants seek to have recovery in this death action governed by Colorado, rather
than Illinois or Iowa, law. Plaintiffs claim that compensatory damages should be decided
under Iowa law. We conclude that Colorado law should be applied to determine
compensatory damages.

Choice- of-law determinations are not mechanistic, as Cortes v. American Airlines, Inc.,

177 F.3d 1272 (11" Cir. 1999), cert, denied, 528 U.S, 1136 (2000), vividly illustrates. The
framework for decision is well set out in Schoeberle v. United States, 2000 WL 1868130 (N.D.
IIL), objections overruled, 2001 WL 293085, however, and need not be repeated here.

The parties agree that Illinois choice-of-law principles take us away from Illinois, either
to Iowa or Colorado. Nor is there any question that Iowa law controls liability issues. Both
the conduct causing the injury, and the injury itself, centers in Iowa. But the decedent was

domiciled in Colorado and had keen for 35 years. She owned property in Iowa, but she also

a


ve

No. 02 C 1966 Page 2

owned property in Colorado, and the value of none of the properties is affected by a conflicts
determination. Two of the decedent’s beneficiaries live in Colorado. At the time of her death
her son, the third of the beneficiaries, lived in Iowa, but it is not at all clear that was his
domicile. He was temporarily in fowa to care for his ill uncle and intended to return to
Colorado upon his uncle’s death. His uncle died two days before his mother. Immediately
prior to his mother’s death he had every intention of returning to Colorado soon, as he thought
his uncle was dying, and it was his mother’s death that changed his circumstances.

Towa has little interest in the relief afforded to non-residents, and the decedent and two
of the beneficiaries were non-residents. The other beneficiary was a resident and perhaps a
domiciliary of Iowa, and he remains a resident, But we do not think that is enough to shift the
most significant relationship with respect to compensatory damages from Colorado to Iowa.
Colorado has made a policy decision about what it considers to be the fair balance between
recovery for wrongful death and the burdens on whoever is liable, and we conclude that

governs.

JAMES B. MORAN

‘ SenYor Judge, U. S. District Court
Corl DT_, 2004.