Brook, Weiner, Sered, Kreger & Weinberg v. Coreq, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | 94-3442 and 94-3533,Nos. 94-3265,s. 94-3265 |
| Citation | 53 F.3d 851 |
| Parties | BROOK, WEINER, SERED, KREGER & WEINBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. COREQ, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant. HM HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharyn L. RANKIN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert S. Rankin, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Gerald B. Lurie (submitted), Janice Duban, Rudnick & Wolfe, Chicago, IL, Daniel W. Glavin, Andrew J. Fetsch, Beckman, Kelly & Smith, Hammond, IN, and Steven A. Weiss, and Donna M. Maus, Schopf & Weiss, Chicago, IL, for plaintiffs.
William J. Moran, Leonard M. Holajter, Friedrich, Bomberger, Tweedle & Blackmun, Highland, IN, and William J. Kunkle, Jr., Joseph A. Strubbe, Stephen McKenna and Raymond F. Benkoczy, Phelan, Pope, Cahill & Devine, Chicago, IL, for defendants.
Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and MANION, Circuit Judges.
Litigants may permit magistrate judges to decide civil cases. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c)(1). An appeal from the magistrate judge's decision comes straight to the court of appeals. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c)(3). But unless all parties consent on the record, the magistrate judge may do no more than make a recommendation, and the parties must present their objections to the district court. Our staff therefore looks closely at appeals from magistrate judges to ensure that the appeal has come to the right court. When the staff cannot find consents from all parties, the court calls for jurisdictional memoranda. We have consolidated for decision two cases in which a substitution of parties raised a question whether there had been effective consent.
HM Holdings sued Robert Rankin; both parties consented under Sec. 636(c)(1), and a magistrate judge conducted all further proceedings. Before trial Robert Rankin died; his wife Sharyn was substituted as the personal representative of his estate. The estate lost and took an appeal; Sharyn Rankin now insists that, because she did not file a consent, the magistrate judge lost power to enter a final decision. Bercoon, Weiner, Glick & Brook, a partnership, sued Manufacturers Hanover International Corporation. After a series of corporate mergers and reorganizations, Coreq, Inc., succeeded to the interest of Manufacturers Hanover and was substituted as a party. After the district judge dismissed all but one of Bercoon Weiner's claims, Coreq consented to decision by a magistrate judge on the final claim. So did Bercoon Weiner. But by the time the consent was filed in the name of Bercoon Weiner, that partnership no longer existed; a change in the identity of the partners had transformed Bercoon Weiner into Brook, Weiner, Sered, Kreger & Weinberg. The case went to trial before a magistrate judge, who entered a judgment on the jury's verdict in favor of Coreq. Brook Weiner appealed to this court. In response to our call for jurisdictional memoranda, Brook Weiner filed a document saying that it hasn't a clue which court should handle further proceedings.
Section 636(c)(1) permits a magistrate judge to assume the role of a district judge with the parties' consent. Because this step entails the surrender of the judicial-independence protections in Article III of the Constitution, the consent must be voluntary. Geaney v. Carlson, 776 F.2d 140, 142 (7th Cir.1985). Each litigant has a right to an Article III judge, so consent must be unanimous. Parties added to the case after the original litigants have consented have an equal right to the protections of Article III, so unless their consent is procured the case must be returned to a district judge. Mark I, Inc. v. Gruber, 38 F.3d 369 (7th Cir.1994); Jaliwala v. United States, 945 F.2d 221 (7th Cir.1991); see also Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 24 F.3d 958, 960 (7th Cir.1994)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schreiber Foods, Inc. v. Beatrice Cheese, Inc.
...transfers an interest that is the subject of a lawsuit, the transferee stands in its shoes. Brook, Weiner, Sered, Kreger & Weinberg v. Coreq, Inc., 53 F.3d 851, 852 (7th Cir.1995); see also Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Eco Chem, Inc., 757 F.2d 1256, 1263 (Fed.Cir.1985). Thus, if during litiga......
-
Coleman v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n of Wis.
...Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor , 478 U.S. 833, 848–51, 106 S.Ct. 3245, 92 L.Ed.2d 675 (1986) ; Brook, Weiner, Sered, Kreger & Weinberg v. Coreq, Inc. , 53 F.3d 851, 852 (7th Cir. 1995).IIIThis court, unfortunately, has not been consistent in its approach to the issue we have been discussin......
-
Williams v. General Elec. Capital Auto Lease, Inc.
...Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 847-49, 106 S.Ct. 3245, 92 L.Ed.2d 675 (1986); Brook, Weiner, Sered, Kreger & Weinberg v. Coreq, Inc., 53 F.3d 851, 852 (7th Cir.1995). Although magistrate judges do not enjoy the structural Article III protections of lifetime tenure or a const......
-
People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 205
...their consent. Williams v. General Electric Capital Auto Lease, Inc., 159 F.3d 266 (7th Cir.1998); Brook, Weiner, Sered, Kreger & Weinberg v. Coreq, Inc., 53 F.3d 851, 852 (7th Cir.1995). They made clear to us at argument that they would not consent, and so the entire case, or at least the ......