Opinion
CASE NUMBER 11 C 1525
06-05-2013
Arango v. Work & Well, Inc.
Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge
Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
For the reasons stated below, Work & Well, Inc.'s motion for leave to plead an additional affirmative defense [218-1] is denied. [×] [ For further details see text below.]
Docketing to mail notices.
STATEMENT
Work & Well, Inc.'s ("Work & Well") motion for leave to plead an additional affirmative defense of setoff based on amounts recovered by the plaintiff in a settlement with the co-defendant Sysco, Inc. ("Sysco") is denied. In this context, setoff is not an affirmative defense because "an affirmative defense operates to eliminate liability rather than reduce it." AEL Fin. LLC v. Tri-City Auto Salvage, Inc., No. 08 C 4384, 2009 WL 3011211, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2009). Nor is Work & Well's request for setoff a counterclaim because it is not being asserted for monies owed Work & Well by the plaintiff. Iroanyah v. Bank of Am., No. 09 C 94, 2013 WL 268635, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2013) ("Illinois law provides that when a party seeks a setoff against 'the same plaintiff who filed suit against him,' the setoff claim is 'subsumed procedurally under the concept of a counterclaim.'"). Work & Well instead appears to be seeking equitable relief under the one-satisfaction rule. "Under this rule, a plaintiff is entitled to only one satisfaction for a single injury" so the rule "'operates to prevent double recovery, or the overcompensation of a plaintiff for a single injury.'" Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co. v. Bridge, Nos. 05 C 4095 and 07 C 1367, 2012 WL 8706, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 2, 2012) (quoting BUC Int'l Corp. v. Int'l Yacht Council Ltd., 517 F.3d 1271, 1276 n.5 (11th Cir. 2008) ("The one-satisfaction rule . . . is not invoked as a counterdemand, but rather as an equitable doctrine designed to prevent multiple recoveries by a plaintiff on its own claim and for a single injury.")). Thus, "[n]on-settling defendants 'are entitled to a reduction in the judgment against them by the amounts received by [plaintiff] in settlement of claims for the same injury.'" Id. As noted by an Illinois court, "[a] plaintiff is only entitled to one recovery and only one satisfaction for claimed injuries pursuant to one cause of action, regardless of the number of theories of recovery advanced." Foster v. Kanuri, 608 N.E.2d 8, 10 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992).
In making this ruling, the Court does not opine on whether any injury purportedly inflicted by the defendants constitutes a single or the same injury. The Court will consider Work & Well's position when and if judgment is entered against it.