Klein v. David A. Novoselsky, Greyhound Lines, Inc., 17 C 7177
| Decision Date | 13 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 17 C 7177,17 C 7177 |
| Parties | TIBERIU KLEIN, Plaintiff, v. DAVID A. NOVOSELSKY, GREYHOUND LINES, INC., and MB FINANCIAL BANK, N.A., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In 2002, Claudia Zvunca was tragically struck and killed by a Greyhound bus. Klein v. O'Brien, 884 F.3d 754, 755 (7th Cir. 2018). Claudia's daughter, Cristina Zvunca, witnessed the accident. Id. She was seven years old at the time. Id. Since then, Claudia's husband (and Cristina's stepfather), Tiberiu Klein, has plagued various federal and state courts with attempts to manage the tort litigation related to Claudia's death. Id. at 756. This federal lawsuit is just one installment in the sixteen-year litigious crusade carried out by Klein and his associates. This time, Klein dresses up his allegations as a series of conspiracy theories involving Klein's erstwhile attorney David Novoselsky, Greyhound Lines, MB Financial Bank, and a handful of Cook County and Illinois Appellate Court judges. See generally R. 51, Am. Compl. But the window dressing does not matter: Klein's claims in this case all fail on the merits for one reason or another. Because Klein has already had substantial leeway to amend his complaint and to bend and break pleading rules,1 the case is dismissed with prejudice.
The byzantine procedural history of the disputes arising out of the fatal tragedy has already been discussed at length in other opinions. See, e.g., Klein v. O'Brien, 2017 WL 3263711, at *1-3 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 1, 2017); Klein v. Motor Coach Indus., Inc., 2017 WL 2834615, at *1-4 (Ill. App. Ct. June 28, 2017);2 Cushing v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 965 N.E.2d 1215, 1218-1230 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012) ("Cushing I"). Without the procedural background provided by those opinions, Klein's Amended Complaint is nearly incomprehensible, so it is worth summarizing the procedural history before diving into the allegations in this case. But to avoid excessively retreading the same ground, only the most pertinent events will be set forth here.3
In 2002, Klein (purporting to act as the executor of his late wife's estate) filed a wrongful death action against Greyhound and the bus driver in Illinois state court. Klein v. O'Brien, 2017 WL 3263711, at *1. Greyhound removed the case to federal court, and it was transferred to the District of Colorado on forum non conveniens grounds. Id. Klein pursued the Colorado action for twelve years. See id. at *1-2. The District of Colorado finally dismissed the case in 2014, holding that Klein had no authority to pursue the case under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act. R. 60, MB Financial Br. Exh. A, Order of Dismissal, Case No. 02-cv-01827 (D. Col. May 30, 2014). After the Colorado case was dismissed, Klein tried to file a new wrongful death action in Illinois "pursuant to the Colorado Wrongful Death Act," but the Illinois Appellate Court rejected the attempt, holding that Illinois law only permits one wrongful death action. Klein v. Motor Coach Indus., Inc., 2017 WL 2834615, at *3-4, *6-7.
While litigation in Colorado was ongoing, Klein and his affiliates filed a host of lawsuits in the Circuit Court of Cook County and in Cook County Probate Court. Klein v. O'Brien, 2017 WL 3263711, at *1-2. Klein made various efforts to obtain control over his late wife's estate, including having a paralegal named as the administrator (the paralegal worked at the law firm that Klein had retained at the time). Id.; In re Estate of Claudia Zvunca, 2017 WL 1040216, at *2 (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 15, 2017). In 2013, Klein briefly succeeded in his efforts to be named as administratorof Claudia's estate, but he was soon removed in favor of Claudia's daughter, Cristina Zvunca. Estate of Zvunca, 2017 WL 1040216, at *2.
Some of Klein's other Illinois litigation efforts were directed at attempting to obtain guardianship of Cristina and control over Cristina's estate. See Estate of Zvunca, 2017 WL 1040216, at *2; Cushing I, 965 N.E.2d at 1222-1226. Klein was assisted in those efforts by attorney David Novoselsky, but at some point, the two fell out, and Novoselsky (allegedly) began to work against Klein's interests. See Cushing I, 965 N.E.2d at 1223; see also Am. Compl. ¶¶ 43-44.4 Before the relationship soured, however, Klein did succeed in becoming Cristina's plenary guardian. Cushing I, 965 N.E.2d at 1222; Cushing v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 991 N.E.2d 28, 46 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013) ("Cushing II"). Klein was apparently never formally removed as plenary guardian, but in 2009, an Illinois judge appointed MB Financial Bank as guardian of Cristina's estate.5 Cushing II, 991 N.E.2d at 65, 67, 69-70. Klein was also barred from further participation in the Illinois action, apparently in response to concerns about Klein's conflicts of interest with Cristina. Id. at 64-65. Klein sought to vacate those orders, but was denied. Id. at 68-69.
In 2009, Novoselsky filed a lawsuit accusing the attorney for Claudia's estate, Jeanine Stevens, of abusing Cristina, and the administrator of Claudia's estate, JohnCushing, of malpractice. See R. 1, Orig. Compl. Exh. 5, 04/08/14 Order, Case No. 09 L 6397, at 1-7; Cushing II, 991 N.E.2d at 62. In the various iterations of the complaint, Novoselsky purported to represent Klein (as Cristina's plenary guardian), Cristina's estate, and MB Financial Bank (as guardian of Cristina's estate). 04/08/14 Order, Case No. 09 L 6397, at 1. It is not clear whether Klein authorized the lawsuit (Klein alleges that he did not). Am. Compl. ¶ 63. An Illinois judge eventually found that Novoselsky filed the lawsuit without sufficient investigation into its factual basis and for the improper purpose of manufacturing a conflict between Stevens and Cushing and the beneficiaries of Claudia's estate. See 04/08/14 Order, Case No. 09 L 6397, at 13, 19. Novoselsky's apparent goal was to disqualify Stevens and Cushing from the lawsuit. Id. at 13.
In 2010, Greyhound and MB Financial settled the Illinois action for $2,090,000. Cushing II, 991 N.E.2d at 75. The trial court approved the settlement, which allocated $52,000 to Klein as damages for Claudia's wrongful death. Id. at 76. The settlement was preceded by a series of orders from the trial court preventing Cushing, the administrator of Claudia's estate, from directing the litigation. Cushing II, 991 N.E.2d at 71. The upshot was that Cushing, the estate's administrator, was not involved in the settlement negotiations, and did not agree to the settlement. See id. at 87-90. Cushing appealed the approval of the settlement.6 Id. at 77-78. Sure enough, the appellate court rejected the settlement agreement on the grounds that Cushing was the proper representative of Claudia's estate, and the trial court had noauthority to approve a settlement where Claudia's estate was not part of the agreement. Id. at 92.
In April 2016, Cristina and her lawyers negotiated a settlement in the Illinois wrongful death action. Klein v. O'Brien, 2017 WL 3263711, at *2. Klein was unhappy with the settlement and tried unsuccessfully to challenge it in federal court. Id. at *3-5 (N.D. Ill. 2017).
Klein and his associates have filed at least four separate lawsuits in the Northern District of Illinois challenging various aspects of the wrongful death litigation.7 The first federal lawsuit that is important to this case8 was filed in 2014, Case No. 14-cv-2609. The factual allegations in the 2014 case covered much the same territory as the factual allegations in this case, but the plaintiffs were (officially)9 Claudia Zvunca's estate (represented by Cristina Zvunca as administrator) and Cristina Zvunca. MB Financial Br. Exh. D, Complaint, Case No. 14-cv-2609. That case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice within the year. MB Financial Br. Exh. E, 09/17/14 Minute Entry, Case No. 14-cv-2609.
The next case of interest was filed in 2016 before Judge Leinenweber, Case No. 16-cv-11008. The plaintiffs were Klein and, oddly, his attorney John Xydakis. The case alleged a conspiracy among various defendants—including Greyhound and Cristina, but not including Novoselsky or MB Financial—to foil Klein's efforts to recover in the wrongful death case. R. 62, Greyhound Br. Exh. E, Am. Compl., Case No. 16-cv-11008. Judge Leinenweber dismissed the lawsuit. Klein v. O'Brien, 2017 WL 3263711, at *9. The Seventh Circuit upheld the dismissal, and chastised Klein and Xydakis for causing "havoc in the tort litigation." Klein v. O'Brien, 884 F.3d at 757-58.
For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true (though only factual allegations get this treatment, not bare conclusions). Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). The Amended Complaint covers the ground explained above, though with a different spin. Klein's overall claim is that Greyhound concocted a scheme to discriminate against various players in the Illinois litigation on the basis of their gender and perceived sexual orientation, with the ultimate goal of depriving Klein of recovery in his Colorado lawsuit and the fees he might have obtained as Cristina's guardian or as the administrator of Claudia's estate. Am. Compl. ¶ 1. The basic shape of the scheme was for Greyhound (allegedly assisted by Novoselsky and MB Financial) to accuse attorney Jeanine Stevens of sexually abusing Cristina. See id. ¶¶ 19, 37-38. The allegations of sexual abuse were designed to derail the wrongful death lawsuit byremoving Stevens and getting Cristina's grandparents to drop the lawsuit. See id. ¶¶ 44-52. The desired result was to settle Klein's Colorado claims for an unfairly low amount. Id. ¶ 44.
Klein alleges that Greyhound (again with help from Novoselsky and MB Financial) recruited several Cook County Court judges into the...
To continue reading
Request your trial