Opinion
No. 02 C 2305
May 23, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Donald W. Parrillo owes his former wife, Nancy L. Reilly, almost $400,000. Her attempts to collect through the Indiana state courts have apparently been unsuccessful. He has sought refuge in bankruptcy in the Northern District of Indiana, but the bankruptcy court denied discharge of the debt because of his fraudulent transfer of assets, including a fraudulent transfer of his ownership interest in a condominium to his daughter, plaintiff Kimberly E. Schob. That ruling is apparently on appeal to the district court.
In the meantime, after the bankruptcy court trial but before the decision, the plaintiffs sued Reilly and various others, including several Indiana judges, in federal court here, Parrillo v. Reilly, case no. 01 C 5855, claiming a conspiracy to deprive Parrillo of the condominium. Judge Zagel dismissed all of those claims on November 29, 2001, except for a minor malpractice claim, which lie transferred to Indiana. Parrillo has appealed.
On February 20, 2002, Parrillo sued his former wife also in federal court here, case no. 02 C 1221. That case seeks a declaration that an Indiana judgment domesticating Reilly's prior Illinois judgment against Parrillo is void. The case was assigned to Judge Manning and a motion to dismiss is pending. Five days later Parrillo's son Timothy sued Reilly and various others in federal court here, case no. 02 C 1338, again relating to the assets involved in the prior actions. Judge Holderman dismissed it on May 16, 2002. Also, Reilly sued Parrillo in state court in DuPage County; he removed it on May 1, 2002, case no. 02 C 3128, and Judge Lindberg remanded it on May 8, 2002. That case was, apparently, a simple application to revive the original judgment, as seven years had elapsed.
This case attacks the Indiana bankruptcy proceeding, claiming that Parrillo and his daughter were never notified of the trial date, November 6, 2001, in which the bankruptcy court, as a followup to its denial of discharge, avoided the fraudulent transfers. Defendants move to dismiss. The motion is granted. If plaintiffs have any grounds for disputing the bankruptcy court's decisions they can do so in their appeal to the district court in Indiana. They cannot avoid that appeal process by repackaging their contentions as a conspiracy and bringing an action in another state. Further, there is no personal jurisdiction over Reilly's Indiana attorney or the bankruptcy trustee there, and none of the defendants had any obligation to chase down the plaintiffs to tell them of a trial date previously set forth in court records.
But there is more. Parrillo has threatened to bring yet more actions, with the likely location Arizona. He is, apparently, of the view that if he can keep recycling old and decided contentions in enough courts his adversaries will give up pursuing the collection of valid judgments. Courts should not be available for that purpose. We enjoin Parrillo and Schob from initiating any action anywhere relating to the assets included in the Indiana bankruptcy estate or to the enforcement of Reilly's judgments against him, without first having obtained leave of this court.