0% found this document useful (0 votes)
90 views5 pages

21-cv-05338-89-PROPOSED Pretrial Order JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER

Uploaded by

scutch24
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
90 views5 pages

21-cv-05338-89-PROPOSED Pretrial Order JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER

Uploaded by

scutch24
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Case: 1:21-cv-05338 Document #: 89 Filed: 10/18/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:598

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MARK N. MOSKOWITZ, an individual, and )


IGBS CORPORATION, an Arizona )
Corporation, ) Case No. 1:21-cv-05338
)
Plaintiffs, ) Hon. Judge Franklin U. Valderrama
)
v. ) Hon. Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes
)
ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., a )
California Corporation, )
)
Defendant. )

JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER


The Parties, by their respective counsel, pursuant to Court’s Order of June 18, 2024 [Doc.

No. 87] for their joint status report, state as follows:

1. Jurisdiction. The Court’s jurisdiction is based upon the diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332. Jurisdiction is not disputed.

2. Case Statement. Plaintiffs Mark N. Moskowitz (“Moskowitz”) and IGBS Corporation

(“IGBS”) are represented by Vincent T. Borst and Ryan F. Manion of Latimer LeVay

Fyock LLC. Defendant Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. (“Alliant”) is represented by

Steven H. Gistenson and Lu W. Harmening of Dykema Gossett PLLC. Plaintiffs’

Complaint is a three-count complaint alleging causes of action based upon breach of

contract, an accounting, and declaratory judgment. The declaratory judgment account was

previously the subject of District Judge Valderramas’ ruling on a motion for summary

judgment and is no longer at issue; the counts for breach of contract and an accounting

remain to be tried at trial.


Case: 1:21-cv-05338 Document #: 89 Filed: 10/18/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:599

Plaintiffs seek to recover commissions due for insurance services provided to

Alliant’s customers Novartis International AG, Novartis Corporation, Novartis Services,

Inc., and any parent, subsidiaries, divisions or affiliates of such entities (collectively

“Novartis”) pursuant to the terms of and Independent Contractor Agreement. Moskowitz

and IGBS maintain that commissions are due for all insurance services Alliant provided to

Norvartis. Alliant disputes Plaintiffs’ claims. Alliant asserts that all commissions due under

the terms of the Independent Contractor Agreement have been paid and Alliant has fully

performed its obligations under the terms of the Independent Contractor Agreement.

3. Stipulations. None.

4. Witness Lists.

a. Plaintiffs’ witnesses:

i. Witnesses Plaintiffs will call at trial:

1. Mark N. Moskowitz;

2. Janice Gannon;

3. Daniel Papajcik (as an adverse witness); and,

4. Any witness Alliant calls to testify at trial.

ii. Witnesses Plaintiffs may call to testify at trial:

1. None other than those above.

iii. Witnesses whose testimony will be presented by deposition or other prior


testimony:

1. None.

b. Defendant’s witnesses:

i. Witnesses Defendant will call to testify at trial:

1. Mark Moskowitz (as an adverse witness);

2
Case: 1:21-cv-05338 Document #: 89 Filed: 10/18/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:600

2. Janice Gannon (as an adverse witness); and,

3. Dan Papajcik.

ii. Witnesses Defendant may call to testify at trial:

1. Dan Yost;

2. Mike Malouf;

3. Eric Levy;

4. Craig Guiffe; and,

5. Chrsitina Johnson.

iii. Witnesses whose testimony will be presented by deposition or other prior

testimony:

1. None.

5. Exhibit Lists. In accordance with this Court’s standing order, Plaintiffs and Defendants

are also submitting separate lists of their exhibits without any stipulations to admissibility.

The parties will continue to resolve any disputes as to admissibility before the status

hearing set for November 8, 2024. See attached Exhibit 1 – Plaintiffs’ Exhibit List, and

Exhibit 2 – Defendant’s Trial Exhibit List.

6. Estimate of Trial Time. Four to five days.

7. Damage Itemization. Plaintiffs seek recovery of damages in excess of $200,000.00, in

an exact amount to be proved at trial based upon records of commissions paid as a result

of insurance services provided to Norvartis that will be introduced into evidence at trial.

3
Case: 1:21-cv-05338 Document #: 89 Filed: 10/18/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:601

8. Motions In Limine.

a. Plaintiffs’ Motions (provided separately):

i. Motion to bar references to any settlement discussions between the


parties. Agreed to as to all parties.

ii. Motion to bar any argument that Plaintiffs’ decision not to call a particular
witness is due to Plaintiffs’ attempts to hide evidence. Defendant objects
to this motion and will file a response.

iii. Motion to bar references to any party’s or witness’ race, religion, or


nationality. Agreed to as to all parties.

iv. Motion to bar Defendant’s counsel from asserting he or she has any
personal knowledge, opinions, or experiences relevant to this action.
Agreed, clarifying that such a bar does not apply to Dan Papajcik, to
which Plaintiffs agree.

v. Motion to bar use of undisclosed documents and bar presenting


undisclosed witnesses. Plaintiffs may withdraw this motion. In the event
not withdrawn by October 21, 2024 Defendant will file a response.

vi. Motion that law of the case bars arguments that Alliant and ABC are
separate entities. Defendant objects to this motion and will file a response.

vii. Motion to exclude nonparty witnesses from courtroom prior to testimony.


Defendant objects to this motion as written and will file a response
clarifying its position in this regard.

b. Defendant’s Motions: Defendant will not be filing any motions in limine, but

rather will assert any position on such motions in response to Plaintiffs’ motions.

c. Proposed Briefing Schedule:

i. Motions in limine due: October 18, 2024;

ii. Responses to Motions in limine due: October 28, 2024;

iii. Any Replies in support of Motions in limine due: October 31, 2024.

4
Case: 1:21-cv-05338 Document #: 89 Filed: 10/18/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:602

MARK N. MOSKOWITZ and IGBS CORPORATION


Plaintiffs

By: /s/ Vincent T. Borst


Vincent T. Borst (6192904)
Ryan F. Manion (6324289)
Latimer LeVay Fyock LLC
55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 422-8000
[email protected]
[email protected]

ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.


Defendant

By: /s/ Steven H. Gistenson


Steven H. Gistenson
Lu W. Harmening
Dykema Gossett
10 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 627-2267
[email protected]
[email protected]

(43297-0001)
4873-3817-3681, v. 1

You might also like