Burke v. Gramlisch

S.D. Illinois

Burke v. Gramlisch

DecidedSeptember 16, 2025

Docket3:23-cv-02540

StatusUnknown

This text of Burke v. Gramlisch (Burke v. Gramlisch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burke v. Gramlisch, (S.D. Ill. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CHRISTOPHER L. BURKE, Special ) Administrator of the Estate of Daryle J. ) Maynor, Deceased ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 23-cv-2540-SMY ) vs. ) ) LEVI C. GRAMLISCH, and ) GERSHENSON CONSTRUCTION Co., ) Inc. ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, District Judge: Now pending before the Court is Defendant Gershenson Construction Company Inc. (“Gershenson”)’s motion for sanctions to dismiss this matter with prejudice (Doc. 59), to which Plaintiff responded (Doc. 62). Daryle Maynor, Plaintiff’s father, died on July 12, 2022 in a car accident while riding in a truck operated by Defendant Levi Gramlisch and owned by Defendant Gershenson. Plaintiff, Gramlisch, and Plaintiff’s fiancée, Julie McArthy, had been together at Plaintiff’s house earlier that day. On July 23, 2025, Gershenson’s counsel contacted McArthy for an interview. McArthy ultimately declined. Plaintiff then contacted Gershenson’s counsel, stating that his attorney was unavailable and advising them not to contact McArthy. Later that day, McArthy sent Gershenson’s counsel two audio files in which Plaintiff appeared drunk, cursing, and upset with McArthy. Gershenson argues Plaintiff’s conduct constitutes witness tampering and seeks dismissal as a sanction. The audio transcripts show mostly drunken inflammatory remarks. While some of the statements are potentially threatening, they are not relevant to the issue of witness tampering. However, one statement is potentially relevant to the issue: “I have the message . . . You wanna see ‘em?” Significantly, by Declaration, McCarthy attests she was never coerced, influenced, threatened or intimidated by Plaintiff regarding her role as a witness, and she remains available to give a deposition (Doc. 62-1, [95, 6, 9). Without more, the Court cannot conclude a preponderance of evidence exists that Plaintiff tampered McArthy. Ramirez v. T&H Lemont, Incorporated, 845 F.3d 772, 781 (2016) (dismissal of a case as a sanction requires a preponderance of the evidence). Accordingly, Defendant Gershenson’s motion for sanctions and motion for hearing! (Docs. 59, 60) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 16, 2025 Matt fate STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge

' The Court is able to decide the issues based on the written submissions. As such, a hearing on the motion is not warranted. Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CHRISTOPHER L. BURKE, Special ) Administrator of the Estate of Daryle J. ) Maynor, Deceased ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 23-cv-2540-SMY ) vs. ) ) LEVI C. GRAMLISCH, and ) GERSHENSON CONSTRUCTION Co., ) Inc. ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, District Judge: Now pending before the Court is Defendant Gershenson Construction Company Inc. (“Gershenson”)’s motion for sanctions to dismiss this matter with prejudice (Doc. 59), to which Plaintiff responded (Doc. 62). Daryle Maynor, Plaintiff’s father, died on July 12, 2022 in a car accident while riding in a truck operated by Defendant Levi Gramlisch and owned by Defendant Gershenson. Plaintiff, Gramlisch, and Plaintiff’s fiancée, Julie McArthy, had been together at Plaintiff’s house earlier that day. On July 23, 2025, Gershenson’s counsel contacted McArthy for an interview. McArthy ultimately declined. Plaintiff then contacted Gershenson’s counsel, stating that his attorney was unavailable and advising them not to contact McArthy. Later that day, McArthy sent Gershenson’s counsel two audio files in which Plaintiff appeared drunk, cursing, and upset with McArthy. Gershenson argues Plaintiff’s conduct constitutes witness tampering and seeks dismissal as a sanction. The audio transcripts show mostly drunken inflammatory remarks. While some of the statements are potentially threatening, they are not relevant to the issue of witness tampering. However, one statement is potentially relevant to the issue: “I have the message . . . You wanna see ‘em?” Significantly, by Declaration, McCarthy attests she was never coerced, influenced, threatened or intimidated by Plaintiff regarding her role as a witness, and she remains available to give a deposition (Doc. 62-1, [95, 6, 9). Without more, the Court cannot conclude a preponderance of evidence exists that Plaintiff tampered McArthy. Ramirez v. T&H Lemont, Incorporated, 845 F.3d 772, 781 (2016) (dismissal of a case as a sanction requires a preponderance of the evidence). Accordingly, Defendant Gershenson’s motion for sanctions and motion for hearing! (Docs. 59, 60) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 16, 2025 Matt fate STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge

' The Court is able to decide the issues based on the written submissions. As such, a hearing on the motion is not warranted. Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Burke v. Gramlisch, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-v-gramlisch-ilsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack