631 F.Supp. 314 (N.D.Ill. 1986), 79 C 20076, Ingersoll Mill. Mach. Co. v. Granger

Docket Nº:79 C 20076.
Citation:631 F.Supp. 314
Party Name:INGERSOLL MILLING MACHINE CO., an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff, v. John P. GRANGER, Defendant.
Case Date:March 24, 1986
Court:United States District Courts, 7th Circuit, Northern District of Illinois
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 314

631 F.Supp. 314 (N.D.Ill. 1986)

INGERSOLL MILLING MACHINE CO., an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff,

v.

John P. GRANGER, Defendant.

No. 79 C 20076.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western Division.

March 24, 1986

Page 315

Bruce H. Weitzman, McDermott, Will & Emery, Chicago, Ill., John C. McCarthy, Williams, McCarthy, Kinley, Rudy & Picha, Rockford, Ill., for plaintiff.

Gerald G. Saltarelli, Butler, Rubin, Newcomer & Saltarelli, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

ORDER

ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge.

Before the court are various motions by the parties. For the reasons stated herein, judgment is entered on behalf of defendant on his counterclaim and against plaintiff on the complaint. Plaintiff is given until April 11, 1986, to file a response to defendant's damage arguments. Defendant is given until April 25 to file his reply.

I. BACKGROUND

Much of the factual background in this case is well set out in the Magistrate's May 27, 1980, Report and Recommendation and need not be repeated here; a brief summary will suffice for purposes of the instant motions.

This case is an employment dispute between plaintiff Ingersoll Milling Machine Company ("Ingersoll") and its exemployee, defendant John P. Granger. Granger was originally stationed at Ingersoll's international headquarters in Rockford, Illinois and was transferred in the fall of 1971 to its Brussels, Belgium office. Ingersoll terminated its relationship with Granger in 1977 while Granger was still in Belgium.

In April of 1978, Granger brought suit against Ingersoll and its Belgium subsidiary in the Belgium courts. Granger alleged that he was entitled to certain termination compensation and other benefits under Belgian law. Ingersoll counterclaimed in the Belgium action for certain expenses it had advanced Granger.

Over one year later, on August 2, 1979, Ingersoll filed this action. Count I sought a declaratory judgment that Granger was not entitled to any termination benefits. Count II sought recovery of certain expenses Ingersoll had advanced Granger during the course of his employment. 1 Thus, the substance of Ingersoll's Illinois suit mirrored that of Granger's Belgian suit.

Granger counterclaimed in this action for enforcement of any judgment rendered by the Belgium court.

Page 316

As to the procedural background following initiation of this action, Granger first filed a motion to dismiss which was for the most part denied. Ingersoll then filed various discovery motions up until Granger received a favorable ruling in Belgium on March 20, 1980. On April 15, Granger once again sought dismissal of Ingersoll's case based on the Belgium lawsuit. This motion to dismiss was extensively briefed and resulted in a Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Mahoney in which he recommended that the motion be granted. The parties then submitted further briefs as to why the Report and Recommendation should or should not be adopted by this court.

On July 2, 1980, rather than ruling on the Report and Recommendation, this court entered a stay order pending appellate review of the Belgium judgment. The Belgium intermediate appellate court issued a ruling essentially upholding the award to Granger and the set off for expenses to Ingersoll. Granger then filed a further motion to dismiss or for summary judgment in this action along with a counter claim for enforcement of the Belgian judgment. Ingersoll opposed this motion, filed its own motion to dismiss the counterclaim, and sought leave to add a further count to its complaint. The additional count would require Granger to reimburse Ingersoll for certain benefits and special payments. Pending a ruling on these motions, Granger held off on certain discovery. This delay also resulted in various discovery motions. On February 21, 1984, this court stayed consideration of all motions pending a decision by the Belgium Supreme Court.

On June 3, 1985, the Belgian Supreme Court (the "Cour de Cassation") issued a ruling...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP