By: Derek Hawkins//August 16, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Thomas M. Janusz, Jr. v. City of Chicago, et al
Case No.: 15-1330
Officials: RIPPLE, KANNE, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges
Focus: Single Recovery Rule
Because appellant federal and state suit involved indivisible sets of injuries for which appellant has already been compensated, appellant is barred from recovering again by the single-recovery rule.
“Janusz attempts to distinguish Saichek on the ground that the plaintiff “was precluded from relitigating the amount of her damages because the judgment was final and valid, not because it was satisfied.” Not so. The Saichek Court expressly referenced satisfaction in its analysis. 787 N.E.2d at 833 (“Be‐ cause the judgment has now been satisfied, and because plaintiff is precluded from relitigating the question of her damages, she has already received all that she is entitled to receive for the injuries that gave rise to this litigation.” (emphasis add‐ ed)). Janusz also argues that Saichek is distinguishable be‐ cause it did not involve an appeal that was pending when the parties sought to vacate the judgment and dismiss the case under § 12‐183(h). Cf. Ballweg v. City of Springfield, 499 N.E.2d 1373, 1375 (Ill. 1986) (“For purposes of applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel, finality requires that the potential for appellate review must have been exhausted.”). But we see nothing in Saichek that indicates this modest factual variance is relevant. Indeed, although the parties in Key‐ stone initially pursued separate appeals, they ultimately abandoned those appeals, stipulated that the judgment had been fully satisfied, and petitioned the trial court for vacatur and dismissal”
Affirmed