Opinion ID: 4023381
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lawsuits Against Keystone and the City

Text: Janusz filed two separate suits in connection with his ar‐ rest and termination. He sued Keystone, Durante, and Ko‐ trba (“Keystone defendants”) in Illinois state court, alleging breach of employment contract, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He also sued the City of Chi‐ cago and Officers Lucas, George, Liberti, and Mugavero Lu‐ 4 No. 15‐1330 cas (“City defendants”) in federal court, alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights and various state laws. The Keystone case proceeded to trial, and a jury found in Janusz’s favor and awarded approximately $3,177,500. But both sides were disappointed with the result and appealed. In order to stay collection of the judgment, Keystone also filed an appeal bond for approximately $4.8 million. While the appeals were pending, the parties executed a settlement agreement requiring Janusz to execute a release in exchange for $3 million ($177,500 less than the jury award). Critically, however, the parties stipulated to the trial judge that “Key‐ stone ha[d] paid [Janusz] all monies due and owing him as the result of the Judgment previously entered against Key‐ stone.” The trial judge vacated the judgment and dismissed the appeal pursuant to 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/12‐183(h) and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 309. Meanwhile, the City case remained at the summary judgment stage. The original district judge denied in part the City defendants’ summary judgment motion, and in doing so declined to determine the effect of the Keystone settlement on Janusz’s damages claim. After a new judge was assigned, the City defendants renewed their summary judgment mo‐ tion as to damages, arguing that Illinois’s single‐recovery rule prevented Janusz from recovering any damages relating to the lost wages and the emotional injuries for which the Keystone settlement had compensated him. The defendants also argued that the doctrine of judicial estoppel barred Ja‐ nusz from claiming that the Keystone judgment had not been fully satisfied when the state court vacated it. The district court granted the City defendants’ motion; however, the ac‐ companying court order did not constitute a final appealable No. 15‐1330 5 judgment, since the Keystone settlement did not encompass all of the damages Janusz sought from the City defendants. This prompted the parties to stipulate that Janusz would “permanently waive[] and relinquish[] his right to seek to recover all damages that were not barred” by the summary judgment opinion. The district judge entered a judgment to that effect, and this appeal followed.