Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Kevin Ciccone

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 4, 2024*
Decided January 10, 2024
Before
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
No. 22-3074
LABORERS’ PENSION FUND, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
KEVIN CICCONE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 19-cv-1609
Steven Charles Seeger,
Judge.
O R D E R
Three pension funds and their administrator sued Kevin Ciccone because his
three companies allegedly failed to pay contributions owed to the funds under a
collective bargaining agreement and Ciccone had personally guaranteed payment. The
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 22-3074 Page 2
district court entered summary judgment against Ciccone. It correctly concluded that
the undisputed evidence confirmed Ciccone’s obligation to the funds; thus, we affirm.
In reviewing an adverse summary judgment, we recite the evidence in Ciccone’s
favor. See Donaldson v. Johnson & Johnson, 37 F.4th 400, 405–06 (7th Cir. 2022). One of
Ciccone’s three companies, Total Home Restoration, settled a prior lawsuit in which
multiemployer funds had sued it for failing to pay employee benefits it owed under a
union contract. For the settlement, Total Home signed a note, agreeing to pay overdue
contributions, plus liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees over the next two
years. Ciccone personally guaranteed Total Home’s debt under the note and any of its
obligations to the funds that “are incurred and become due and owing for the duration
of the Note.” After paying a part of its debt under the note, Total Home dissolved and
defaulted on its remaining payments (about $50,000) to the funds. Ciccone’s second
company, KAAT, Inc., operated contemporaneously with Total Home and shared the
same business address, bank account, registered agent, and phone numbers as Total
Home. Like Total Home, KAAT did not pay fringe benefits contributions to the funds
for its laborers. The third company, JK Installation Corp, arose shortly after Total Home
dissolved and operated materially identically to Total Home, except in name.
The funds audited all three companies. The audit revealed that, since settling the
prior suit, all three collectively owed nearly $500,000 in unpaid fringe benefits, union
dues contributions, liquidated damages, an audit fee, and accumulated interest.
The funds filed this suit against all three companies and Ciccone. They sought to
hold the three companies jointly and severally liable for each company’s failure to pay
under the collective bargaining agreement. They also alleged that Ciccone breached his
guaranty to pay the remaining balance on Total Home’s note from the earlier settlement
after Total Home defaulted. The district court entered summary judgment against
Ciccone. It ruled that Total Home and KAAT were jointly and severally liable under the
single-employer doctrine and that JK Installation was successor to Total Home and
assumed its obligations. Those conclusions, the judge said, had “ripple effects” for
Ciccone as the guarantor for Total Home’s still-unpaid note. Ciccone guaranteed
payment of Total Home’s debts to the funds that “are incurred and become due and
owing for the duration of the Note.” Total Home was liable for KAAT’s debts because
KAAT was the same employer as Total Home, and Total Home was liable for JK
Installation’s debts because JK Installation assumed Total Home’s debts. As Total
Home’s guarantor, Ciccone thus had to pay the nearly $500,000 that the three
companies owed to the funds during the duration of the note, plus Total Home’s

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-3074 Page 3
remaining balance on the note of about $50,000. The district court entered judgment
against Ciccone in that amount.
Now pro se on appeal, Ciccone does not meaningfully engage with the district
court's decision. Instead, he asserts irrelevantly that the funds’ counsel violated labor
laws, states (without substantiation) that the district court relied on false evidence, and
seeks relief for himself and, improperly, Total Home and JK Installation. As a pro se
litigant, Ciccone cannot represent Total Home or JK Installation, see In re IFC Credit
Corp., 663 F.3d 315, 318 (7th Cir. 2011), whose appeals were dismissed for lack of
prosecution because the companies did not obtain counsel. United States v. Hagerman,
545 F.3d 579, 581–82 (7th Cir. 2008); Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory
Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993). Moreover, Ciccone does not mention the guaranty on
appeal, let alone contest the district court’s ruling that as guarantor he is liable for Total
Home’s, KAAT’s, and JK Installation’s nearly $550,000 debt. We are mindful of
Ciccone’s pro se status, see Atkins v. Gilbert, 52 F.4th 359, 361 (7th Cir. 2022)
(citing Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545–46 (7th Cir. 2001)), but he is still required
to comply with Rule 28(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure by, among other
things, at least trying to challenge the district court’s analysis. Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545–
46. Because he has not, we have no reason to disturb the district court’s judgment. Id.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --