EAST ST. LOUIS – Lawyer Sean Cronin claims an adversary in U.S. district court who challenged a date on a St. Clair County civil suit implicitly alleged misconduct against the circuit’s chief judge.
On Sept. 4, Cronin denied a statement of adversary Shaun Broeker that he ran to St. Clair County courthouse to request a date change.
“There was nothing improper done by anyone with regard to the administrative action of correcting an incorrect file stamp date on a pleading,” Cronin wrote.
He denied communicating with Chief Judge Andrew Gleeson “ex parte,” in the absence of a party.
He wrote that no one at the Donovan Rose Nester firm had any communications with Gleeson regarding the matter.
He further wrote that regardless, Gleeson wasn’t the presiding judge when defendants removed the suit to district court and isn’t the presiding judge now.
“Accordingly, any communication would not hypothetically have been ex parte,” he wrote.
Eight days earlier, defense counsel Broeker had asked Chief U.S. District Judge Rosenstengel to void Gleeson’s order.
Broeker claimed a state court judge couldn’t exercise jurisdiction after removal.
Cronin represents Wesley Huff of Collinsville and his Mirror Finish body shop.
Huff sued former partners Charles Binkley, Eric Stokes, and Andy Clawson right after the coronavirus lockdown began.
Huff alleged unjust enrichment, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent inducement, conspiracy, and violation of federal racketeering law.
The four men had litigated a dispute in St. Louis County for three years, and Circuit Judge Ellen Ribaudo had ruled against Huff.
On April 10, she ordered him to pay Binkley, Stokes, and Clawson about $700,000.
Broeker removed the St. Clair County suit to district court on May 12, asserting federal jurisdiction over the racketeering claim.
He moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that an April 7 date stamp on Huff’s complaint pushed it beyond a statute of limitations by a week.
Huff had resigned from the partnership on March 31, 2015, and he sued under a statute with a limit of five years.
On June 1, Cronin amended Huff’s complaint to drop the racketeering claim.
On June 4, Gleeson entered an order deeming the complaint filed on March 30.
“The circuit clerk’s office wrongly rejected this case originally sent through the Odyssey efile system,” Gleeson wrote.
He found it should have been stamped with the original date.
Cronin moved to remand the suit to St. Clair County on June 9, claiming federal jurisdiction ended when the racketeering claim ended.
He wrote that the filing date was incorrectly and inadvertently stamped April 7, and was subsequently corrected by the circuit clerk.
Rosenstengel denied remand on Aug. 7, stating she noted the conduct of the parties and the pending claims.
She found the Seventh Circuit gave her wide latitude to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims “when the plaintiff showed signs of playing games.”
Cronin opposed the motion to dismiss on Aug. 21, stating Huff indisputably filed the suit within five years of Huff’s resignation.
On Aug. 27, Broeker replied that the stamp proved the suit was filed April 7.
Cronin moved to strike the reply, calling it redundant, immaterial, impertinent, scandalous and false.
He claimed it alleged misconduct against him and implicitly alleged misconduct against the chief judge and the circuit clerk’s office.
He wrote that Gleeson corrected a simple filing error and the order didn’t address the merits of the case.
He wrote that on March 30, legal assistant Jennifer Dean filed the complaint via the Odyssey electronic filing system and paid all fees.
He wrote that Dean received a receipt on March 30.
“On or about June 1, she contacted the St. Clair County circuit clerk’s office regarding the incorrect file stamp after it was brought to her attention that the file stamp was incorrect,” Cronin wrote.
He wrote that a staff member acknowledged the incorrect stamping.
He wrote that due to an error in software of vendor Tyler Technologies, a deputy clerk wrongfully rejected the complaint.
“Plaintiff’s filing fee was properly paid at the time of filing, but Tyler Technologies system did not reflect that,” Cronin wrote.
“The error was a direct result of a routine updating of the software by Tyler Technologies, resulting in an inadvertent software error.”
He wrote that a staff member in the circuit clerk’s office submitted a proposed order to Gleeson.
He wrote that misconduct allegations “are utterly unsupported and in reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.”
He wrote that the purpose “seems to be to convince this court that Judge Gleeson’s order itself is somehow tainted and invalid.
“These false allegations are in a public filing and have the ability to continue to do harm.”