Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Margaret M. Carver and Randall S. Carmean v. Sheriff of Lasalle County, Illinois, and Lasalle County, Illinois

324 F.3d 947

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2003-04-09
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • “[A] county in Illinois is a necessary party in any suit seeking damages from an independently elected county officer (sheriff, assessor, clerk of court, etc.
  • “Because state law requires the county to pay, federal law deems it an indispensable party to the litigation.”
  • “[A] county in Illinois is a necessary party in any suit seeking damages from an independently elected county officer … in an official capacity.”
  • County is liable for indemnification of Sheriff sued in his official capacity and is an indispensable party so long as the Sheriff remains in the suit
  • “[A] county in Illinois is a necessary party in any suit seeking damages from an independently elected county officer (sheriff, assessor, clerk of court, and so on) in an official capacity.”
  • [A] county in Illinois is a [proper] party in any suit seeking damages from an independently elected county officer (sheriff, assessor, clerk of court, and so on) in an official capacity.”
  • a county in Illinois is a necessary party in any suit seeking damages from an independently elected county officer, such as a sheriff, assessor, clerk of court, and so on, in an official capacity
  • A “county in Illinois is a necessary party in any suit seeking damages from an independently elected county officer ([e.g., a] sheriff . . .) in an official capacity. Because state law requires the county to pay, federal law deems it an indispensable party to the litigation.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Margaret M. Carver and Randall S. Carmean v. Sheriff of Lasalle County, Illinois, and Lasalle County, Illinois. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
112 opinions
CARVER v. SHERIFF OF LASALLE COUNTY, ILLINOIS,324 F.3d 947(7th Cir. 2003)
Margaret M. CARVER and Randall S. Carmean, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
SHERIFF OF LaSALLE COUNTY, Illinois, Defendant, and LaSalle County,
Illinois, Appellee.
No. 00-1569.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued November 9, 2000.
Question Certified March 15, 2001.
Decided April 9, 2003.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Charles R. Norgle, Sr., J.
Andrew W. Levenfeld (argued), Levenfeld Associates, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Gary R. Garretson, Morris, IL, for Defendant.

William C. Barasha (argued), Judge James, Park Ridge, IL, Keith R. Leigh, Leigh, Pool Fabricius, Ottawa, IL, for Appellee.
Before FAIRCHILD, EASTERBROOK, and MANION, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Margaret Carver and Randall Carmean hold a federal judgment for $500,000 as the result of a settlement in this case, which arises under42 U.S.C. § 1983and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The settlement was reached with the Sheriff of LaSalle County, in his official capacity (for Title VII covers "employers" and not agents). Because the Sheriff's Office lacks funds to pay the judgment, plaintiffs tried to collect from LaSalle County, which denied any obligation.

The district court agreed with the County's position, which left plaintiffs unable to collect their judgment. We asked the Supreme Court of Illinois to determine who is responsible for paying an official-capacity judgment against an independently elected county officer. SeeCarver v. Sheriff of LaSalleCounty,243 F.3d 379(7th Cir. 2001). The Supreme Court of Illinois accepted the certification and concluded:Page 948
under Illinois law a sheriff, in his or her official capacity, has the authority to settle and compromise claims brought against the sheriff's office. Because the office of the sheriff is funded by the county, the county is therefore required to pay a judgment entered against a sheriff's office in an official capacity. We further hold that this conclusion is not affected by whether the case was settled or litigated.
Carver v. Sheriff of LaSalle County,787 N.E.2d 127,141,272Ill.Dec. 312,203 Ill.2d 497(2003) (relying on745 ILCS 10/9-102in conjunction with55 ILCS 5/4-6003and 5-1106).

The Supreme Court of Illinois has our thanks for resolving this knotty and recurring question of state law. Its answer implies an additional point of federal law: that a county in Illinois is a necessary party in any suit seeking damages from an independently elected county officer (sheriff, assessor, clerk of court, and so on) in an official capacity. See Fed.R.Civ.P.17,19. Because state law requires the county to pay, federal law deems it an indispensable party to the litigation. Plaintiffs' complaint did name LaSalle County as a defendant, but the County sought and obtained dismissal. Having received from the court exactly what it wanted, the County cannot complain that, when the Sheriff settled the suit, it was in no position to object. But in the future counties must be named as parties and are entitled to remain in the suit, so that they may veto improvident settlements proposed (at their expense) by the independently elected officers.

The judgment of the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion and the conclusion of the state's highest court. If LaSalle County does not promptly satisfy the judgment, the district judge should facilitate collection under Fed.R.Civ.P.69.Page 507