The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TOM HENSIEK, et al., )
Plaintiffs, )
vs. ) Case No. 20-cv-377-DWD
)
BD. OF DIRECTORS OF CASINO QUEEN )
HOLDING CO., INC., et. al., )
Defendants. )
_________________________________________ )
BD. OF DIRECTORS OF CASINO QUEEN )
HOLDING CO., INC., et. al., )
Crossclaim/Third-Party Plaintiffs, )
vs. )
)
CHARLES BIDWILL, III, et al., )
Crossclaim/Third-Party Defendants. )
_________________________________________ )
CHARLES BIDWILL, III, )
TIMOTHY J RAND, )
Defendants/Counterclaimants, )
Crossclaim/Third Party Plaintiffs, )
vs. )
)
TOM HENSIEK, et. al., )
Counterclaim/Crossclaim/Third-Party )
Defendants. )
_________________________________________ )
JAMES G. KOMAN, )
Crossclaim Plaintiff, )
vs. )
)
BD. OF DIRECTORS OF CASINO QUEEN )
HOLDING CO., INC., et al. )
Crossclaim Defendants. )
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on three motions:
The Motion for Extension of Time and to Consolidate Briefing on Motions to
Dismiss (Doc. 298) and Motion to Amend/Correct the Scheduling Order (Doc. 299) filed
by Plaintiffs Tom Hensiek, Jason Gill, and Lillian Wrobel; and
The Joint Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 302) filed by Crossclaim and Third-
Party Defendants the Board of Directors of Casino Queen Holding Company, the
Administrative Committee of the Casino Queen Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Jeffrey
Watson, Robert Barrows, James G. Koman, Timothy Rand, and Charles Bidwill, and
Casino Queen, Inc. and Casino Queen Holding Company, Inc. (Doc. 302).
Motion for Extension and to Consolidate Briefing (Doc. 298)
On August 9, 2022, Plaintiffs Tom Hensiek, Jason Gill, and Lillian Wrobel
(“Plaintiffs”) filed a motion titled “Consent Motion to Extend and Consolidate Plaintiffs’
Deadlines to File a Brief in Opposition to Outstanding and Anticipated Motions to
Dismiss” (Doc. 298). Despite the Court’s prior instructions to use the parties’ actual
names or their most descriptive designations in the introduction of each document (See
Order at Doc. 266, p. 11), the Motion only refers to the “Parties” generally. Presumably,
the “Parties” referred to are those related to Plaintiffs’ claims and the various deadlines
at issue in the Motion.1 However, the Court should not be placed in a position to
speculate as to the relief requested and which parties have joined or consented to that
1 In paragraph 9 of the Motion, Plaintiffs represent that the following parties have consented to the
requested relief: Defendants the Bidwill Succession Trust, the William G. Koman Sr. Living Trust, the
William G. Koman Jr. Irrevocable Trust, Brian Bidwill, Patricia Bidwill, Shauna Bidwill Valenzuela, Karen
Hamilton, Janis Forsen, and Elizabeth Koman (Doc. 298, ¶ 9). However, the positions of all other parties
are not indicated.
request. Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to repeat its prior mandate, and
reminds counsel of the following:
[I]n each document filed with the Court, counsel should use the parties’
actual names or their most descriptive designations to refer to the parties in
the introduction or heading of each document. Once the moving or
responding parties are clearly identified, the parties may then use more
generalized terms to refer to the parties as may be appropriate.
(Order at Doc. 266, p. 11). In the future, should this directive be ignored, the Court will
strike any noncompliant filings.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court finds it appropriate to review the merits
of the Motion (Doc. 298). Plaintiffs request that the Court set a consolidated briefing
schedule for five pending motions to dismiss. These motions to dismiss include:
1. Defendant Bidwill Succession Trust2’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 231);
2. Defendants William G. Koman Sr. Living Trust and William G.
Koman Jr. Irrevocable Trust3’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 234);
3. Defendants Brian R. Bidwill and Patricia M. Bidwill’s Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 252);
4. Defendant Shauna Bidwill Valenzuela’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
267); and
2Defendant was named in the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 144) and appears on the docket sheet as
“The Bidwill Succession Trust, its Trustee, and any beneficiaries of said Trust.” However, the
corresponding Notices of Appearance (Doc. 227, Doc. 229), and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 231) indicate that
the moving party is Defendant Charles Bidwill III, in his capacity as Trustee of the Bidwill Succession Trust.
3Defendant was named in the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 144) and appears on the docket sheet as
“The William J. Koman, Jr. Irrevocable Trust, its Trustee, and any beneficiaries of said Trust.” However,
the corresponding Notices of Appearance (Doc. 166, Doc. 167), and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 234) indicate
that the moving party is Defendant William J. Koman Jr., as Trustee and beneficiary of the William J. Koman
Jr. Irrevocable Trust.
5. Defendants Elizabeth Koman4, Karen Hamilton5, and Janis Forsen6’s
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 319).
Plaintiffs propose the following briefing deadline: Plaintiffs’ responses in
opposition to the motions to dismiss shall be due by September 15, 2022, and any reply
briefs shall be due by October 6, 2022. Plaintiffs also request that they be granted leave
to file a consolidated opposition brief to all five of the motions to dismiss, which would
be no more than 50 pages in total. Plaintiffs argue that consolidation would promote
efficiency and reduce the burden on the Court because the motions raise similar issues
and arguments.
The Court holds considerable discretion to manage its dockets, see Keeton v.
Morningstar, Inc., 667 F.3d 877, 884 (7th Cir. 2012), in addition to the Court responsibility
to secure “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. While consolidated briefing may assist with judicial
economy in certain circumstances, those circumstances are not present here. Indeed, in
reviewing the subject motions, the Court observes that there are potentially significant
4Defendant Koman was named in the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 144) and appears on the docket sheet
as “Elizabeth S. Koman Irrevocable Trust, its Trustee, and any beneficiaries of said Trust.” However, the
corresponding Notices of Appearance (Doc. 317, Doc. 318) and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 319) indicate that
the moving party is Defendant Elizabeth S. Koman, as beneficiary of the Trust.
5Defendant Hamilton was named in the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 144) and appears on the docket
sheet as “Karen L. Hamilton Irrevocable Trust, its Trustee, and any beneficiaries of said Trust.” However,
the corresponding Notices of Appearance (Doc. 317, Doc. 318) and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 319) indicate
that the moving party is Defendant Karen L. Hamilton, as beneficiary of the Trust.
6Defendant Forsen was named in the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 144) and appears on the docket sheet
as “Janis A. Koman Irrevocable Trust, its Trustee, and any beneficiaries of said Trust.” However, the
corresponding Notices of Appearance (Doc. 317, Doc. 318) and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 319) indicate that
the moving party is Defendant Janis Forsen, as beneficiary of the Trust.
differences between the motions filed by the individual defendants and those filed by the
trust entities. While the motions all raise arguments about the timeliness and sufficiency
of Plaintiffs’ claims, and the ability of the moving defendants’ to be named as “parties in
interest” under ERISA, some of the motions also raise potential issues concerning the
proper identities of the persons or entities named in the First Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, while consolidated briefing may be more efficient for the parties, it
would appear to be more burdensome for the Court. Indeed, should a consolidated brief
be allowed, the Court would be required to scour through upwards of 50-pages to dissect
which discreet arguments are directed to each individual motion to dismiss. Whereas
separate responses will ensure that each argument is directed at the appropriate motion
and create a clear record of each issue, regardless of whether some of the arguments may
be repeated in each response.
The Motion for Extension and to Consolidate Briefing (Doc. 298) is therefore
GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Plaintiffs’ responses to the Motions to
Dismiss at Doc. 231, Doc. 234, Doc. 252, Doc. 267, and Doc. 319 shall be due by September
15, 2022. The responses shall be set forth in separate filings directed at the appropriate
motion. Any reply briefs shall be filed by September 29, 2022. However, before filing a
reply brief, the parties should be mindful to review Local Rule 7.1 and the following
directive: “[r]eply briefs are not favored and should be filed only in exceptional
circumstances. The party filing the reply brief shall state the exceptional circumstances.”
SDIL-LR 7.1(c) (emphasis in original).
Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (Doc. 299)
On August 9, 2022, Plaintiffs Tom Hensiek, Jason Gill, and Lillian Wrobel
(“Plaintiffs”) filed a motion titled “Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order” (Doc.
299). This Motion also refers to the “Parties” generally and provides little clarity as to
the moving parties or those joining in the requested relief. However, in a footnote,
Plaintiffs state that: “Parties” refers to:
all parties whose counsel have noticed an appearance in the above-
captioned matters as of the date of this filing. Dentons (counsel for
Gaughan and Toti) was copied on all the correspondence over the last 2
weeks where parties came to agreement set forth in this motion. On July 23,
Dentons agreed to most of the terms of that agreement but has not
responded since July 23 to requests for all counsel consent.
(Doc. 299, n.1).
Turning to the merits of the Motion, the Court acknowledges that Plaintiffs and
the consenting parties to the Motion appear to have reached an agreement concerning
certain discovery deadlines and scheduling disputes. As the parties are free to enter into
most of these stipulations without the Court’s intervention, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(b), and
currently there are no set deadlines for the close of discovery or dispositive motions (see
Doc. 266), the Court finds it unnecessary to amend the scheduling and discovery order to
adopt those stipulations.
However, the parties’ stipulations do appear to impact Plaintiffs’ deadline for
filing a motion for class certification. Therefore, the Court construes the Motion as a
request to extend this deadline and corresponding briefing schedule. As set forth in the
Scheduling and Discovery Order (Doc. 133), class certification briefs are due September
30, 2022 (Doc. 131-1). Plaintiffs propose that this deadline be extended to November 1,
2022. Considering the significant number of dispositive motions recently filed with the
Court, in addition to the discovery issues being addressed by the Movants, the Court
finds good cause to extend the class certification deadline. Accordingly, the Motion to
Amend Scheduling Order (Doc. 299) is GRANTED, in part, and the Scheduling and
Discovery Order (Doc. 133) is amended as follows: Class certification briefs are due
November 1, 2022; Memorandum in opposition to class certification shall be filed by
December 1, 2022; and Reply Memorandum, if any, must be filed by December 22, 2022.
Crossclaim and Third-Party Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 302)
By Motion dated August 15, 2022, Crossclaim Defendants, the Board of Directors
of Casino Queen Holding Company (the “Board of Directors”), the Administrative
Committee of the Casino Queen Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the “Administrative
Committee”), Jeffrey Watson, Robert Barrows, James G. Koman, Timothy Rand, and
Charles Bidwill, and Third-Party Defendants Casino Queen, Inc. and Casino Queen
Holding Company, Inc., ask to extend their respective response deadlines to the
crossclaims and third-party complaints and filed against them (Doc. 302).
On April 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (Doc. 144)
naming twenty Defendants, including seven of the moving parties: the Board of
Directors, the Administrative Committee, Watson, and Barrows (hereinafter the “Board
Defendants”), Bidwill, Rand, and Koman. On May 19, 2022, these Defendants in turn
filed their respective answers, crossclaims, and third-party complaints (Doc. 153, Doc.
154, Doc. 157), asserting the following claims:
The Board Defendants assert contingent crossclaims against
Defendants Rand, Bidwill, and Koman, and contingent third-party claims
against Third-Party Defendants Michael Gaughan, Franklin Toti, Philip B.
Kenny, James C. Kenny, John E. Kenny, Jr., Patrick B. Kenny, Joan Kenny
Rose, and Mary Ann Kenny Smith (Doc. 153);
Defendants Bidwill and Rand assert contingent crossclaims against
the Board Defendants and Defendant Koman, and contingent third-party
claims against Third-Party Defendants Michael Guaghan, Franklin Toti,
Casino Queen, Inc., and Casino Queen Holding Company, Inc. (Doc. 154)7;
and
Defendant Koman asserts contingent crossclaims against the Board
Defendants, and Defendants Bidwill and Rand (Doc. 157).
In addition to their crossclaims and third-party claims, Defendants Rand and
Bidwill have filed a joint motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc.
155). Defendant Koman also filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 159).
These motions are still pending and are under advisement with the Court.
By the instant Motion, the moving Crossclaim and Third-Party Defendants seek to
extend their respective response deadlines to the crossclaims and third-party claims
7Bidwill and Rand also assert counterclaims against Plaintiffs (Doc. 154).
asserted against them. Movants propose extending these response deadlines until after
the disposition of Bidwill, Rand, and Koman’s dispositive motions at Doc. 155 and Doc.
159. Movants allege that if these dispositive motions are granted, and the claims against
Rand, Bidwill, and Koman are dismissed, then the counterclaims and third-party claims
asserted against them will be substantially resolved. The Movants further represent that
should the Motion be granted they will continue to participate in the discovery process.
The Court recently granted similar relief to another Third-Party Defendant,
GreatBanc Trust Company (See Doc. 279), and finds it appropriate to do the same here.
Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 302) is
GRANTED. The following deadlines are hereby extended to 30-days after the later of
the entry of an Order disposing of Defendant Bidwill and Rand’s pending Motion to
Dismiss at Doc. 155 or an Order disposing of Defendant Koman’s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings at Doc. 159:
Crossclaim Defendants Rand, Bidwill, and Koman’s answer
deadline to the Crossclaim filed by the Board of Directors, the
Administrative Committee, Watson, and Barrows at Doc. 153;
Crossclaim Defendants the Board of Directors, the Administrative
Committee, Watson, Barrows, and Koman’s answer deadline to the
Crossclaim filed by Bidwill and Rand at Doc. 154;
Third-Party Defendants Casino Queen, Inc., and Casino Queen
Holding Company, Inc.’s answer deadline to the Third-Party Complaint
filed by Bidwill and Rand at Doc. 154; and
Crossclaim Defendants the Board of Directors, the Administrative
Committee, Watson, Barrows, Bidwill and Rand’s answer deadline to the
Crossclaim filed by Koman at Doc. 157.
Finally, a review of the docket indicates that Third-Party Defendants Casino
Queen, Inc., and Casino Queen Holding Company, Inc. have not filed the required
disclosures Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1. Third-Party Defendants Casino Queen, Inc., and Casino
Queen Holding Company, Inc. shall therefore file their corporate disclosure statements
by August 29, 2022.
SO ORDERED. LZ J
Dated: August 23, 2022 (Vv Gn
“I
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
10