Blank Page

No.

IN THE

FILED

0 915 7 2 Jl~l Z5 ~.~11~

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

JOSEPH STROUD AND JOVON BROADCASTING,

WJYS-TV 62/34, Petitioners,

Vo

JERRI BLOUNT,

Respondent.

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The Appellate Court Of Illinois

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

WILLIAM M. HOHENGARTEN JESSICA RING AMUNSON JOSHUA M. SEGAL JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Avenue, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 639-6000

JEROLD S. SOLOVY Counsel o? Record

BENJAMIN K. MILLER MICHAEL T. BRODY JOHN C. ROBERTS JR. JENNER & BLOCK LLP

353 North Clark Street

Chicago, Illinois 60654-3456 (312) 222-9350 jsolovy@

Blank Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the court below erred in affirming a $2.8 million punitive damages award under BMW and State Farm, where the court quantified the ratio of punitive to compensatory relief by counting attorneys' fees as compensatory damages, in conflict with this Court's and the Utah Supreme Court's decisions in State Farm.

2. Whether the court below erred in rejecting the applicability of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine to petitioning of law enforcement officials that is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment, based on rationales that conflict with the decisions of this Court and the federal courts of appeals and otherwise merit this Court's review.

ii

LIST OF PARTIES All parties to the proceeding are listed in the caption.

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Petitioner Joseph Stroud is an individual. Petitioner Jovon Broadcasting, WJYS-TV 62/34, is an Illinois corporation. Jovon Broadcasting, WJYS-TV 62/34 has no parent corporation. No publicly held company owns ten percent or more of its stock.

ooo

III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED .......................................i

LIST OF PARTIES .....................................................ii

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ..........i.i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .....................................v.i

OPINIONS BELOW .................................................... 1

JURISDICTION ..........................................................1

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ....................................2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................2.

A. Factual Background ........................................2.

B. Procedural Background ..................................4..

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT .................9.

I. By Treating Attorneys' Fees as Compensatory Damages When Assessing the Constitutionality of Punitive Damages, the Decision Below Creates a Conflict of Authority and Adds to the Confusion in the Lower Courts ............................................. 13

II. The Illinois Court's Refusal to Apply NoerrPennington Creates Significant Conflicts of Authority and Otherwise Merits This Court's Review .................................................................2. 3

iv

APPENDIX A Blount v. Stroud, 915 N.E.2d 925 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (Illinois Appellate Court Opinion Under Review, As Modified Upon Denial of Rehearing On October 6, 2009) ..................................................................la

APPENDIX B Blount v. Stroud, 395 Ill. App. 3d 8 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (Illinois Appellate Court Original Opinion Of June 24, 2009, Subsequently Amended And Superseded) ...5..0a

APPENDIX C Blount v. Stroud, 924 N.E.2d 454 (Ill. 2010) (Illinois Supreme Court January 27, 2010 Order Denying Petitioners' Petition For Leave To Appeal) ............................................92a

APPENDIX D Blount v. Stroud, No. 109370 (Illinois Supreme Court Order Denying Petitioners' Motion For Leave To File A Motion For Reconsideration) (April 5, 2010) ................................................................ 93a

APPENDIX E Blount v. ~troud, No. 01-L-002330 (Illinois Trial Court Opinion Denying Defendant's Post-Trial Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding The Verdict, New Trial, And/Or Remittitur) (July 28, 2006) .............9..5a

V

APPENDIX F Blount v. Stroud No. 01-L-002330 (Illinois Trial Court Opinion Granting Plaintiff's Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses) (Sept. 15, 2006) ...........................112a

APPENDIX G Constitutional and Statutory Provisions ......1..2.0a

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

C~ES

A Fisherman'~ Best, Inc. v. Recreational Fishing Alliance, 310 F.3d 183 (4th Cir. 2002) ..................................................................31

Action Marine, Inc. v. Continental Carbon, Inc., 481 F.3d 1302 (llth Cir. 2007) ...............2. 1

Alexander v. National Farmers Organization, 687 F.2d 1173 (8th Cir. 1982) ..................................................................36

Amerigraphies, Inc. v. Mercury Casualty Co., 107 Cal. Rptr. 3d 307 (Cal. Ct. App. 2olo) .................................................................. 21

Baker v. National State Bank, 801 A.2d 1158 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2002) ....................19

Bayou Fleet, Inc. v. Alexander, 234 F.3d 852 (5th Cir. 2000) ............................................26

BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516 (2002) ............................................. 25, 27, 30, 33, 34

Bill Johnson'~ Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (1983) ...........................................23

Blount v. Stroud, 376 Ill. App. 3d 935 (2007) ........7

Blount v. Stroud, 232 Ill. 2d 302 (2009) .................7

BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) .................................. 8, 14, 17, 20

Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988) ................................................................. ~5

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download