Jay Hauser

POL 399
April 3rd, 2019
Dr. Boddery

1) Bluebook Citation: Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Health & Welfare Fund v. Lewis, 745 F.3d 283
(7th Cir. 2014).
2) Parties: Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund, Arthur H.
Bunte Jr. (plaintiffs-appellees); Beverly Lewis, David T. Lashgari (defendants-appellants)
3) Procedural History: The Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare
Fund (hereinafter known as “the plan”) sued Lewis and Lashgari for refusing to honor a
subrogation lien. The district court enjoined Lewis and Lashgari from disposing of the money
owed to the plan and ordered them to place the funds in a trust fund. They refused, were held in
civil contempt, and ordered to produce documents to prove the alleged financial situation that
caused them to fail to follow court orders.
4) Facts:
• Beverly Lewis was injured in a car accident. She owed the plan $180,000 for her medical
treatments.
• Lewis, represented by David T. Lashgari, sued the driver and received a $500,000
settlement.
• The plan secured a lien to obtain funds from the suit.
• Lashgari failed to give $180,000 of the settlement to the plan, instead splitting it between
himself and Lewis.
5) Arguments: The defendants-appellants argue that settlement was only intended to compensate
Lewis rather than pay the plan. They claim that they cannot pay the $180,000, citing Ms. Lewis’
affidavit, stating that she spent her share of the settlement. The plantiffs-appellees argue that since
the appeal is frivolous, they are entitled to “just damages” in the form of attorneys’ fees.
6) Issues:
• Is Lewis and Lashgari’s contempt citation appealable?
• Are Lewis and Lashgari obligated to pay?
• Is the plan entitled to collect attorneys’ fees from Lewis and Lashgari
7) Legal Rules:
• Yes. Civil contempt citations are appealable if the underlying order that a party failed to
follow is appealable.
• Yes. Simply claiming that one cannot pay does not preclude one from being responsible
for paying a cost.
• Yes. For in-house counsel, attorney fees should be measured in terms of the opportunity
cost of defending their employer in a lawsuit.
8) Reasoning: The court holds that since the civil contempt citation comes from an appealable
preliminary injunction, it is also appealable. They fail to find a wholly adequate reason to support
this holding and instead rely on precedent alone. They point out that the defendants fail to
adequately address the merits of the case. They point to bank statements that indicate that the last
entry indicates that the defendants were able to pay the $180,000. Their mere inability to do so, as
stated in Lewis’s affidavit, is not compelling. Furthermore, they see that the plaintiffs’ claim of a
frivolous appeal has merit to order the defendants to show cause that their appeal was not
frivolous.
9) Disposition: The court ordered the defendants to show cause and dismissed their appeal.

Page 1 of 2
1) Bluebook Citation: Martin v. Living Essentials, L.L.C., 160 F. Supp. 3d 1042 (N.D. Ill. 2016).
2) Parties: Johannes T. Martin (plaintiff); Living Essentials, L.L.C. (defendant)
3) Procedural History: Living Essential moved to dismiss Martin’s complaint.
4) Facts:
• Martin holds the world record for most consecutive kicks (no knees) with a Hacky Sack.
• In a commercial for 5-hour-ENERGY, a drink made by Living Essential, an actor claims
that, due to the drink, in five hours he, “disproved the theory of relativity; swam the
English Channel and back; found Bigfoot; and mastered origami while beating ‘the
record for Hacky Sack.’”
• At the bottom of the commercial, Living Essential displays a text stating “For comedic
purposes only. Not actual results”.
• The Illinois Right to Publicity Act (hereinafter referred to as “IRPA”) has a one-year
statute of limitations since the initial publication of the offending material for filing a
claim.
• The Lanham Act bans false or misleading representations of fact for use in commerce,
including advertising.
5) Arguments: Martin, angered at the claim that it is so simple to break his record, argues that the
commercial is false advertising. Living Essentials argues that the commercial in question never
referenced Martin in any capacity. In addition, it is not clear that Living Essentials was referring
to Martin’s record, as there are at least 14 different Hacky Sack-related records.
6) Issues:
• Is Martin’s claim time-barred?
• Could Martin’s claim succeed under the IRPA or Lanham Act?
7) Legal Rules:
• Yes. IRPA claims must be stated within one year of the offending material’s publication.
• No. Farcical claims are not intended to be viewed truthfully and must not be evaluated as
such.
8) Reasoning: The court holds that Martin adequately stated the its jurisdiction in the case both in
his response to the motion to dismiss and his claim regarding the Lanham Act. Since Martin
became aware of the commercial in 2012, his 2014 IRPA claim is time-barred. The commercial’s
statements, taken at face value, are too vague to properly reference Martin or his record.
Moreover, since the commercial is not meant to be taken as true and is intended as farcical,
Martin’s claims are unreasonable under IRPA. Since the commercial’s statements are so
outrageous that one would not be fooled by them, Martin’s suit is not actionable under the
Lanham Act. In short, he needs to learn to take a joke.
9) Disposition: The motion to dismiss is granted.

Page 2 of 2