Meier v. Musburger et al

MOTION

N.D. Ill.March 21, 2008

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION GARRY MEIER, an individual, Plaintiff, v. TODD W. MUSBURGER, individually, and d/b/a as a non-existent entity known as “Law Offices Of Todd W. Musburger, Ltd.”, TODD W. MUSBURGER, LTD., an Illinois corporation, and BRIAN MUSBURGER, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 08 C 216 Judge Der-Yeghiayan Magistrate Judge Cole DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS MEIER’S COMPLAINT Pursuant to Rules 8(a), 9(b), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants Todd W. Musburger, Todd W. Musburger, Ltd. and Brian Musburger, (collectively “Musburger”), by their attorneys, move this Court for an Order dismissing Plaintiff Garry Meier’s First Amended Complaint with prejudice. In support thereof, Defendants state as follows and submit their Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 1. This case concerns the legal services provided by Musburger for Meier and the payment for those services. The claims and issues asserted by Meier have been previously decided by an Illinois state court. Additionally, the claims fail to meet basic pleading requirements and lack any merit. 2. First, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Meier alleges the same injury, issues, and claims here as he did in the previously adjudicated state case. Specifically, Meier’s alleged injury is his payment of Musburger’s attorneys fees, and the prior state action determined Musburger’s entitlement to Case 1:08-cv-00216 Document 11 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 1 of 3 these fees. Meier is improperly asking this court to sit in appellate review of the previous State Court ruling. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case. 3. Second, if this Court has jurisdiction, this suit is barred by res judicata. There was a final judgment on the merits in State Court based on the jury’s verdict and numerous other rulings by the State Court. There is an identity of the cause of action with the State Case for Musburger’s fees and the current case challenging the fees paid. Finally, Todd W. Musburger, Ltd., Todd W. Musburger, and Brian Musburger are all in identity or in privity with the plaintiff from the State Case. The requirements for res judicata are satisfied, and therefore, this suit is barred. 4. Finally, Meier fails to state a cause of action for any of his allegations including, RICO, Illinois Attorneys Act, Antitrust, and Class Action. From a simple dispute over the amount of fees Meier owed to his attorney, Todd W. Musburger, Meier has pieced together nonsensical claims that have no basis in law. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Todd W. Musburger, Todd W. Musburger, Ltd., and Brian Musburger, respectfully request that the Court enter an Order (a) dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice; (b) requiring Plaintiff and his attorney-of-record to pay Defendants their costs and fees incurred by defending themselves against the First Amended Complaint, including those related to the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions; and (c) any further relief this Court deems appropriate. 2 Case 1:08-cv-00216 Document 11 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 2 of 3 Dated: March 21, 2008 Respectfully submitted, Defendants Todd W. Musburger, Todd W. Musburger, Ltd., and Brian Musburger By:___/s/ Carlin R. Metzger ____________ One of Its Attorneys Richard T. Greenberg (ARDC No. 1047825) Carlin R. Metzger (ARDC No. 6275516) Susan E. Groh (ARDC No. 6289629) McGuireWoods LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Suite 4400 Chicago, IL 60601-1681 Phone: 312.849.8100 Attorney No. 40426 /5229137 3 Case 1:08-cv-00216 Document 11 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 3 of 3