Dist. Ct. did not err in granting on res judicata grounds defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's lawsuit, alleging action based on defendant's liquidation of plaintiff's trading account, where plaintiff had failed to meet margin calls, since: (1) defendant had prevailed in prior lawsuit seeking payment from plaintiiff on margin calls based on same transactions, where defendant had accepted plaintiff's Rule 68 offer of judgment to resolve case; and (2) Illinois gives consent judgments claim-preclusion effect if, as here, preclusion otherwise applies. Moreover, Ct. of Appeals held that sanctions may potentially be imposed on plaintiff, where: (1) plaintiff never paid on its Rule 68 offer of judgment in defendant's prior action against it; (2) plaintiff abandoned on appeal its theory advanced in Dist. Ct. that state law was irrelevant on issue as to whether accepted Rule 68 offer of judgment was "final judgment on merits" for purposes of applying res judicata; (3) plaintiff ignored/misrepresented controlling precedent on said issue; and (4) record suggested that plaintiff never intended to pay on its Rule 68 offer of judgment and instead filed instant lawsuit claiming $25 million, and then filed instant appeal of adverse ruling in effort to obtain bargaining chip with respect to defendant's prior judgment.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Res Judicata