EAST ST. LOUIS – Attorney C.J. Baricevic ignored a court schedule for months and didn’t bring his client or himself to a deposition on Jan. 21, mechanical contractor Corrigan Brothers alleged at U.S. district court on Feb. 2.
Corrigan Brothers moved to sanction Baricevic’s client Michael Stone of Madison city by dismissing his complaint.
Corrigan Brothers counsel Robert Golterman of St. Louis claimed Stone failed to serve discovery, depose Corrigan Brothers, or name any experts.
Baricevic
Golterman attached a message he sent on Jan. 25, asking Baricevic who in his firm Corrigan Brothers should deal with.
Stone, a former salesman, claims the company owes him about $800,000.
He sued Corrigan Brothers in Madison County circuit court in 2020, alleging breach of contract and violation of Illinois wage law.
He named brothers Jim and Dennis Corrigan, both of Missouri, as defendants.
He also named office employees Dawn Wallace and Dawn Carpenter as defendants.
Corrigan Brothers removed the complaint to district court, asserting diverse citizenship as a Missouri business.
Baricevic moved to remand the complaint to Madison County, claiming the Illinois citizenship of Wallace and Carpenter justified state court jurisdiction.
District Judge Stephen McGlynn denied it, finding Stone sued them improperly.
“Neither Wallace nor Carpenter were parties to the contract and Stone has not alleged any basis to hold them liable,” McGlynn wrote.
McGlynn dismissed Jim and Dennis Corrigan last April, finding Stone provided no evidence to support a basis for jurisdiction against them.
He exercised jurisdiction over Corrigan Brothers because it did business in Illinois, and ruled that Stone could pursue a claim for breach of contract against it.
Last June, he adopted a joint proposal for a schedule leading to trial this July.
He set deadlines of last July 1 for initial discovery, Sept. 15 for Stone’s deposition, and Oct. 15 for deposition of Corrigan Brothers.
He set a Nov. 22 deadline for Stone to disclose experts and a Dec. 20 deadline for their depositions.
He set deadlines of March 7 for discovery and March 23 for dispositive motions.
According to Golterman’s motion for sanctions, Corrigan Brothers served discovery and Stone produced remarkably unresponsive documents.
He claimed Stone’s response to an interrogatory about calculation of damages stated, “Minimum of $788,508 plus compound interest.”
He claimed Stone responded to an interrogatory about efforts to inform Corrigan Brothers that he didn’t receive a bonus by referring to a note from 2008.
He attached to his motion a discovery letter he sent Baricevic on Sept. 3, about deficiencies in the responses.
It stated that Stone must provide an account for damages on an annual basis.
It stated that Stone didn’t identify or produce the 2008 note.
“To date, plaintiff has never responded to the discovery letter,” Golterman wrote.
He claimed Corrigan Brothers tried to set a date for Stone’s deposition without a response until after the deadline.
He claimed that on Dec. 9, a day before the deposition, Baricevic sent a message stating his client had just produced three documents.
He claimed Stone produced the 2008 note, five months after it was requested.
At the deposition, he claimed, Stone made several attempts to examine documents he had brought with him.
He claimed Stone ended the deposition after two hours, with leave to continue.
He claimed he received two pages of hand written calculations that included the $788,508 amount of damages.
The parties later agreed to resume the deposition on Jan. 21, and on Jan. 20, Baricevic informed him that Stone would not attend.
Golterman claimed he informed Baricevic that the deposition would proceed, if only to make a record of Stone’s absence.
He claimed Baricevic clarified that he would be present.
Next day, he claimed, neither Stone nor Baricevic was present.
He attached to his motion a message he sent to Baricevic on Jan. 25, stating he would move to compel responses if he didn’t receive them.
The message stated, “Please let me know ASAP who in your firm we should be dealing with on this case.”
Stone hadn’t responded as of Feb. 2, according to Golterman’s motion.
As an alternative to dismissing the complaint he proposed to prohibit Stone from supporting his claims or opposing any defenses of Corrigan Brothers.
As another alternative he proposed to prohibit Stone from deposing Corrigan Brothers or issuing any discovery.
McGlynn ordered a response by Feb. 25.