By: Derek Hawkins//June 6, 2018//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Len Boogaard, et al. National Hockey League, et al.
Case No.: 17-2355
Officials: EASTERBROOK and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and STADTMUELLER, District Judge
Focus: Failure to State Claim
Len and Joanne Boogaard appeal the dismissal of the wrongful-death action they brought as the personal representatives of the estate of their son, Derek Boogaard. They devote their appeal almost entirely to arguments that would spark excitement—or fear—in the heart of a civil procedure student. There is a Hanna v. Plumer problem—whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b)(3) controls the Boogaards’ ability to bring this suit. 380 U.S. 460 (1965). There is an Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins question— whether federal or state law applies if Rule 17(b)(3) does not control. 304 U.S. 64 (1938). There is a choice-of-law problem—whether Illinois, Minnesota, or New York law applies if this is a matter of state law. And there is even a relation back issue—whether, if Minnesota law applies, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(3)’s relation-back provision can save the Boogaards from an error that it is otherwise too late to correct.
At the end of the day, however, it is an argument to which the Boogaards give short shrift that disposes of their case: forfeiture. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the district court that by failing to respond to the National Hockey League’s argument that their complaint fails to state a claim, the Boogaards forfeited any argument that it does. Their suit thus fails regardless of whether they can run the procedural gantlet of showing that they are the proper parties to bring it.
Affirmed