Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Neal v. Target Corporation, 2013 CV 5907. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois Number: infdco20160627a50 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jun. 27, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 27, 2016
Summary: PETITION TO ENTER JUDGMENT JEFFREY T. GILBERT , Magistrate Judge . NOW COMES Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, TARGET CORPORATION, by and through one of its attorneys, ROBERT M. BURKE of JOHNSON & BELL, LTD., and petitions this honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to enter judgment in its favor and against Cross-Defendants, WALSAY, INC. and HOME NICHES, INC., in the amount of $494,127.96. In support thereof, Target Corporation states the following:
More

PETITION TO ENTER JUDGMENT

NOW COMES Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, TARGET CORPORATION, by and through one of its attorneys, ROBERT M. BURKE of JOHNSON & BELL, LTD., and petitions this honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to enter judgment in its favor and against Cross-Defendants, WALSAY, INC. and HOME NICHES, INC., in the amount of $494,127.96. In support thereof, Target Corporation states the following:

1. Pursuant to Target Corporation's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Walsay, Inc., and Home Niches, Inc., the Hon. John Robert Blakey entered partial summary judgment in favor of Target Corporation and against Walsay, Inc., and Home Niches, Inc., on July 1, 2015. The Court specifically ruled as follows:

[T]he Court finds that Target has demonstrated the existence of a valid contract — including a valid indemnification clause. Additionally, Target has shown that it performed its obligations under that contract and has shown that Home Niches did not. Target has also shown that, pursuant to the March 2011 assignment, Walsay was also obligated to perform under the Partners On-Line Agreement and did not. As a result, Target is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its breach of contract claims against Home Niches and Walsay.

(See page 12 of the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, docket No. 150, filed July 1, 2015.)

2. Pursuant to Target's motion, the Court made its entry of partial summary judgment a final order pursuant to Rule 54(b). (See docket No. 156, filed July 20, 2015.) No appeal was taken from that Order.

3. On June 16, 2016, the Hon. Jeffrey T. Gilbert entered an Order advising the parties to set a date for Target to prove-up its damages on its Crossclaim against Home Niches, Inc., and Walsay, Inc. (See docket No. 218, filed June 16, 2016.)

4. The attached Affidavit of John Damico, the Claims Adjuster for Target Corporation's third-party administrator, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, is supported by a table of Target Corporation's settlement payments and payment of defense costs, with supporting invoices and copies of settlement checks, to establish the payments made by Target Corporation in settlement of this claim and in defense of this claim. (See the attached Affidavit of John Damico and Group Exhibit A attached thereto, which are incorporated herein by reference.1)

5. Based upon the aforesaid Affidavit, Target Corporation has established that it paid the amount stated to settle Plaintiffs' causes of action against it and that it incurred and paid defense costs, including attorneys' fees, in defending the claims brought against it. Pursuant to Judge Blakey's Order, Target Corporation is entitled to recover the settlement amount, as well as the defense costs incurred by it in defending the litigation, which payments total $494,127.96.

WHEREFORE, Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, TARGET CORPORATION, prays that this honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against Cross-Defendants Home Niches, Inc., and Walsay, Inc., in the amount of $494,127.96.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ANGELA NEAL, individually and as mother and next friend of KEON REEVES, a minor, Plaintiff, Case No. 13-cv-5907 Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert vs. TARGET CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, et al, Defendants.

AFFIDAVIT

NOW COMES the Affiant, John Damico, who states that if called to testify herein, he could competently testify to the following:

1. I am employed by Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. which serves as the third party administrator for Target Corporation in regard to claims filed against Target Corporation,

2. I oversaw the defense and resolution of the lawsuit filed by Angela Neal, individually and as mother and next friend of Keon Reeves, a minor, against Target Corporation, cause No. 2013 CV 5907 ("Neal Litigation").

3. I have reviewed the invoices and billing statements associated with the defense of Target Corporation relative to the Neal Litigation. I have personal knowledge how the invoices and billing statements were received, reviewed and paid by Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. relative to this claim.

4. The total amount of the settlement paid on behalf of Target Corporation and the fees and costs incurred by Target Corporation in defending the underlying Neal Litigation to date was $[REDACTED\] See attached hereto as Group Exhibit A, the Table of Target Corporation's Settlement Payments and Defense Costs, supported by the settlement checks and invoices and billing statements for attorneys' fees, experts' fees and costs incurred in the defense of the Neal Litigation.

5. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. issued checks to the providers listed to pay the amounts listed in the invoices and billing statements comprising Group Exhibit A. In turn, Target Corporation reimbursed Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. for the amounts paid to the providers of the services shown in the invoices and billing statements.

6. Based on Sedgwick's payment records in its claims system and attached documents, I have examined and verified the attached Table of Target Corporation's Settlement Payments and Defense Costs reflecting all of the payments made by Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. in settlement and for defense fees, experts' fees and costs incurred in the defense of the Neal Litigation to date, which ledger is consistent with the invoices and billing statements comprising Exhibit A.

7. I have reviewed the $[REDACTED\] settlement drafts paid to Angela Neal and her attorneys as Target Corporation's contribution towards the settlement of the Neal Litigation and based upon my personal knowledge the same was paid by Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. on behalf of Target Corporation. See copies of the settlement checks attached to Exhibit A which were issued by Sedgwick Claims Management Services and cashed by Angela Neal and her attorneys. In turn, Target reimbursed Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. for the settlement amount of $[REDACTED\].

8. Further affiant sayeth not.

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

EXHIBIT A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ANGELA NEAL, individually and as mother and next friend of KEON REEVES, a minor, Case No. 13-cv-5907 Plaintiff, Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert vs. TARGET CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, et al., Defendants.

TABLE OF TARGET CORPORATION'S SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS AND DEFENSE COSTS

Legal Invoices and Costs (Advanced by Johnson & Bell, Ltd.)

Date submitted Amount Billed Date paid Amount paid 11/12/2013 $ 9,454.13 11/26/2013 $ 9,454.13 02/27/2014 $16,366.70 03/26/2014 $16,366.70 05/15/2014 $36,058.97 06/25/2014 $36,058.97 08/11/2014 $25,892.30 09/05/2014 $25,892.30 11/16/2014 $36,828.16 12/18/2014-2/03/2015 $36,828.16 02/27/2015 $35,135.23 04/09/2015 $35,135.23 05/13/2015 $30,684.63 06/16/2015 $30,684.63 08/31/2015 $24,011.89 09/29/2015 $24,011.89 11/16/2015 $16,831.61 11/19/2015 $16,788.61 02/16/2016 $41,477.88 05/03/2016 $41,477.88 05/20/2016 $ 6,356.30 06/07/2016 $ 6,356.30 TOTAL $279,097.80 $279,054.80

Court Reporter Invoices (Paid directly by Sedgwick)

Date submitted Amount Billed Date paid Amount paid 07/09/2014 $1,256.50 07/14/2014 $1,256.50 08/27/2014 $ 912.31 09/09/2014 $ 912.31 12/16/2014 $1,436.65 12/18/2014 $1,436.65 12/16/2014 $ 749.95 1/5/2015 $ 749.95 04/16/2015 $ 704.70 10/14/2015 $ 704.70 05/04/2015 $ 660.66 10/14/2015 $ 660.66 07/27/2015 $ 649.37 08/05/2015 $ 649.37 TOTAL $6,370.14 $6,370.14

Expert Bills — Engineering Systems, Inc. (ESI)

Date submitted Amount Billed Date paid Amount paid 03/18/2014 $5,448.45 04/03/2014 $5,448.45 04/17/2014 $ 8.12 10/30/2014 $ 8.12 06/16/2014 $ 926.00 10/30/2014 $ 926.00 09/18/2014 $3,248.26 10/02/2014 $3,248.26 08/20/2014 $ 148.33 09/05/2014 $ 148.33 02/19/2015 $5,248.86 06/02/2015 $5,248.86 TOTAL $15,028.02 $15,028.02

Medical Expert Bills — Dr. Walter Jay

Date submitted Amount requested Date paid Amount Paid 04/22/2014 $1,187.50 06/02/2015 $1,187.50 04/30/2015 $1,425.00 09/23/2014 $1,425.00 09/10/2014 $3,562.50 09/23/2014 $3,562.50 TOTAL $6,175.00 $6,175.00

Settlement Checks — Plaintiff and their attorneys

Payment Date Amount Paid 03/28/2016 $[REDACTED\] 03/28/2015 $[REDACTED\] TOTAL $[REDACTED\] TOTAL SETTLEMENT PAID AND COSTS AND FEES INCURRED AND PAID: $[REDACTED\]

FootNotes


1. The Affidavit attached hereto is the "public-record version" of the Affidavit (see L.R. 26.2(c)), which has been redacted along with the amounts of the settlement checks. Contemporaneous with the filing of the instant motion, Target also will be filing a motion seeking leave of Court to file the unredacted Affidavit and the legal bills attached to the Affidavit under seal. As the amounts paid by the parties in settlement of the underlying personal injury claim are confidential, and as this Court has previously allowed documents pertaining to the settlement to be filed under seal (see docket entry No. 197, order dated January 19, 2016), in order to maintain the confidentiality of the settlement amount paid by Target, both the total amount of the judgment sought by Target and the amount of the settlement paid by Target have been redacted from the public-record version of the Affidavit.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer