Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : In Their Opinion : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

WHITTINGTON v. INDIANAPOLIS MOTOR SPEEDWAY FOUNDATION (April 13, 2010)

DonWhittington and his brother Bill used to race cars. In fact, they (with a third driver) won the famous Le Mans 24-hour endurance race in 1979 driving a Porsche 935 K3 (finishing just ahead of Paul Newman). A few years later, the K3 was transferred to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Foundation and has since been on display in the Foundation's Hall of Fame Museum. In 2004, after Whittington requested the car’s return, the Foundation sent a letter claiming ownership of the car. Whittington filed a complaint for tortious conversion and replevin. He alleged that he has always owned the Porsche and only loaned it to the Foundation. Neither party had any documentary evidence in support of its position and at least one principal witness has since died. After a one-day bench trial, the court found in favor of the Foundation. Whittington appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Ripple, and Kanne affirmed. The Court noted that Indiana law requires a replevin plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of personal possession before any burden shifts to the defendant. Similarly, under Indiana law, a conversion plaintiff must establish a property right. The Court noted the lack of documentation and the conflicting evidence and inferences in the court below. Each party presented evidence in support of its respective position. The Court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in its conclusion that Whittington failed to establish a prima facie right of possession.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

TRUHLAR v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (April 12, 2010)

Kenneth Truhlar was injured while working as a letter carrier for the United States Postal Service. He was required to periodically submit a form to the Department of Labor (DOL) in order to collect his partial disability payments. On the forms, he reported that he had no other job during the period for which he was claiming disability. In fact, Truhlar was a bass guitarist in a rock band and earned several thousand dollars during the period in question. The Service suspended him -- his union filed a grievance and, when it was denied, appealed. After the Service completed its investigation and concluded that Truhlar violated several rules, it notified Truhlar of its decision to terminate his employment. Again, the union grieved -- again, it appealed the denial of the grievance. Meanwhile, the DOL sought repayment of the benefits he had already received and a federal prosecutor considered criminal charges. The union and the Service agreed to a stay of the grievances pending the disposition of those actions. Truhlar appealed the DOL forfeiture order. The prosecutor decided not to prosecute. When a newly appointed postmaster inquired into the status of the pending grievances, she was provided with the Service's and the Department's reports concluding that Truhlar had knowingly failed to report outside income. She was also told, though incorrectly, that Truhlar had not appealed the forfeiture order. The postmaster met with the union representative and passed that accurate information to him. Based on the internal investigation, the Department's investigation, the prosecutor's rationale for declining to prosecute, and his belief that the DOL proceedings were complete, the union representative decided to withdraw the grievances. The Service terminated Truhlar's employment. A few months later, the Department's forfeiture order was reversed. The Appeals Board decided that the form did not put Truhlar on notice that he had to report his bass guitarist earnings. Truhlar filed suit under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. He alleged that the Service violated the collective bargaining agreement by terminating him without cause and alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation by not pursuing the grievances. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Truhlar appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Manion and Evans affirmed. In a § 301 "hybrid" action, a plaintiff must prevail on both his claims against his employer and his union. Here, the district court concluded that the Service did not violate the collective bargaining agreement. Since that conclusion was enough to grant summary judgment to the Service, the district court did not address Truhlar's claim against the union. On appeal, the union renewed its argument that it did not breach its duty of fair representation. Truhlar never responded to that argument, explaining at oral argument that he did not think he was required to address a position he had not lost below. The Court explained that an appellee may defend the district court's judgment on any ground raised below. The Court concluded that Truhlar had therefore forfeited any opposition to the union's position on fair representation. Notwithstanding that conclusion, the Court reviewed Truhlar's district court submissions on the topic and concluded that Truhlar would lose on the merits as well. Truhlar's burden was to show that the union's actions were arbitrary and discriminatory or in bad faith. The Court noted that the union representative met with the postmaster, reviewed the internal investigation, reviewed the Department's report and decision, and considered the actions of the prosecutor before reaching his decision to withdraw the grievances. Far from arbitrary, the Court considered the representative's decision rational.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

IN RE: REPOSITORY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (April 12, 2010)

Repository Technologies, Inc. ("RTI") was a software supplier. When it needed additional financing, William Nelson, a minority shareholder, offered to help. He eventually loaned almost $2 million to RTI. Once he sent a notice of default, however, RTI filed for Chapter 11 reorganization. In the bankruptcy proceeding, RTI attempted, unsuccessfully, to recharacterize the entire Nelson debt as equity. Although the bankruptcy court refused to dismiss the case on the ground it was filed in bad faith, it did dismiss it on the ground that RTI was unable to reorganize. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court and denied Nelson's request to strike, as dictum, the finding that the case had not been filed in bad faith. Nelson appeals -- RTI cross appeals. (Meanwhile, Nelson also filed a complaint in federal court seeking damages for the breach of the loan agreement. The district court froze RTI's assets pending resolution of the case, but not before RTI paid $100,000 to its bankruptcy lawyers. The court also appointed a receiver who transferred all of RTI's assets to Nelson as the successful bidder at a UCC sale. The court approved the sale and dismissed the claims without prejudice.)

Nelson also brought suit, in state court, against RTI's lawyers. He alleged that the lawyers conspired with RTI to file the bankruptcy case to enrich themselves, that they tortiously interfered with his loan agreement with RTI, and that they abused the bankruptcy process. The defendants removed. The district court denied remand, even after Nelson withdrew his "abuse of the bankruptcy process" count. The court then, relying on the district court’s finding in the bankruptcy case that the bankruptcy case was not filed in bad faith, dismissed the abuse of process claim with prejudice. The defendants moved to dismiss the rest of the complaint on the grounds that the entirety of the complaint was based on an abuse of the bankruptcy process. The district court, however, concluded that some state claims remained and remanded to state court. The defendants appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Ripple and Tinder vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss in the bankruptcy court appeal and reversed and remanded in the district court appeal. First addressing the appeal of the bankruptcy court decision, the Court concluded that the case was moot. The district court, in an order not appealed, approved the sale of all of RTI's assets. An appellate review of the bankruptcy court's decision could therefore not provide any meaningful relief. Although the Court agreed with Nelson that the bankruptcy court's statement about the good faith filing was dictum, it declined to entertain the argument since one cannot appeal dictum. The Court therefore vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal from the bankruptcy court as moot.

With respect to the appeal of the district court case, the Court also began with a discussion of its jurisdiction. The defendants had removed on three alternate grounds: bankruptcy jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction, and complete preemption. The district court relied on its bankruptcy jurisdiction to keep the case. The Court noted that district courts have original jurisdiction of proceedings "arising in or related to" cases under title 11. The Court agreed with the district court that the claims in the case were predicated on the lawyers' participation in the bankruptcy case and therefore met the "arising in" jurisdiction. Even the pre-petition conduct alleged in the complaint was related to the claims of abuse of process. Before reaching the merits of the remand, however, the Court concluded that it also had to address the existence of jurisdiction under the alternate grounds argued -- diversity jurisdiction and complete preemption – since the existence of any federal jurisdiction ground would prohibit a remand. As to the former, the defendants earlier conceded that diversity jurisdiction could not be a basis for the original removal because of the "forum defendant rule." The defendants did not preserve the argument that diversity jurisdiction could be used to keep the case in federal court, notwithstanding the “forum defendant rule, since the original removal was on other, proper grounds that have now been eliminated. The court therefore did not reach that "interesting question." With respect to complete preemption, the Court noted that complete preemption requires the existence of a federal cause of action that can substitute for the state action and provide recovery. Here, the lack of a federal claim that could substitute for Nelson's civil conspiracy and tortious interference claims illustrates the absence of complete preemption. The district court therefore did not have an independent ground of federal jurisdiction and had discretion to remand the supplemental state claims. On the merits of the remand, the Court recognized the usual practice to dismiss supplemental state claims if federal claims are dismissed before trial and conceded that it rarely interferes with a district court's discretion in this area. However, the discretion is not absolute. Here, the state claims are based on the defendants' participation in the bankruptcy case and are inseparable from the dismissed federal claims. When state claims are so entangled with the dismissed federal claims, the district court should retain supplemental jurisdiction. The fact that the claims are so interrelated and entangled might suggest that the state law claims should be dismissed as well. Although conceding the logic of that point, the Court added that the district court's reliance on the bankruptcy court's dictum in dismissing the federal claim was flawed. Dictum has no preclusive effect. The state claims should be resolved, said the Court, without reference to that dictum.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

NATIONAL INSPECTION & REPAIRS v. GEORGE S. MAY INTERNATIONAL (April 9, 2010)

National Inspection & Repairs (“NIR”) is a trucking company located in Topeka, Kansas. When one of its employees accidentally caused its accounting systems to crash, NIR sought help from George S. May International (" May"), a business consulting firm. The parties entered into a consulting agreement. The agreement required NIR to approve any effort recommended by May. It also prohibited NIR from hiring any May employee for a year after the date of the agreement. May submitted five progress reports over the course of the three-week engagement. Each report was approved by NIR. As soon as the engagement was complete, NIR hired the May project manager as its Controller. NIR alleges that the project manager embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars from NIR while acting as its Controller. NIR brought a breach of contract action against May. It alleged that May breached the contract by failing to "implement" its duties and for negligently hiring and supervising the project manager. The district court granted summary judgment to May. NIR appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Kanne and Sykes affirmed. They Court first quickly addressed its appellate jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed without prejudice a claim brought by each of the parties, which made its order non-final. The Court noted its own precedent the lifts the jurisdictional bar when each party agrees at oral argument to treat the dismissals as with prejudice. Here, the parties were not explicit at oral argument. However, they were explicit in post-argument briefing. The Court concluded that that was sufficient to lift the jurisdictional bar. On the merits of the "failed to implement" allegation, the Court noted that NIR cannot prevail because it never pointed to a specific obligation or provision of the agreement that May is alleged to have failed to implement. On the merits of the negligent hiring claim, the Court concluded that it was NIR that in fact breached the contract by hiring the project manager. Finally, the Court addressed NIR's breach of implied warranty and negligence claims. NIR has a tort claim under Kansas law only if there is a violation of a duty imposed by law, as opposed to by agreement. Since Kansas law does not impose any duty on the parties to a consulting services agreement, there is no action for breach of a duty.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

TAMBURO v. DWORKIN (April 8, 2010)

John Tamburo designs software for dog lovers. He lives and works in Illinois. One of his products is an online database that provides pedigree information. He created the database by pulling information about pedigrees from other sources on the Internet. The sources of some of the information used by Tamburo were free public websites operated by defendants Henry, Hayes, Mills, and Dworkin. Dworkin is a Canadian resident and citizen -- the others are citizens and residents of the United States. When Henry, Hayes, and Mills discovered what Tamburo had done, they made statements on their own web sites accusing Tamburo of being a thief and of selling stolen goods. They called for a boycott of his products. They even revealed Tamburo's home address and urged their own readers to harass him. Dworkin first demanded that he remove the information from his database. When Tamburo did not do so, Dworkin sent out his own e-mails accusing Tamburo of theft and using the information for an improper purpose. Some of these messages made it to Wild Systems, an Australian company that has its own pedigree software product. Wild Systems forwarded the messages to its own e-mail list. Tamburo sued the four individuals and Wild Systems in Illinois federal court. He sought a declaration that he had violated no federal law and sought damages for antitrust violations, defamation, tortious interference, trade libel, and civil conspiracy. The district court dismissed as to all defendants on the grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. Tamburo appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Kanne, and Sykes affirmed in part and reversed in part. As an initial matter, the Court addressed the state and federal antitrust claims and concluded that the district court properly dismissed them, although they should have been dismissed for failure to state a claim. The claims were stated in a completely conclusory fashion and failed to meet the Twombly standard. The Court then turned to personal jurisdiction. Given the Illinois long-arm statute, the question for the Court was whether the defendants had sufficient "minimum contacts" with the forum to support jurisdiction. The Court concluded that none of the defendants had sufficient contacts with Illinois to support a finding of general jurisdiction. In order to establish specific jurisdiction, a) the contacts must relate directly to the challenged conduct, b) the defendant must have "purposefully directed" activities at the forum, and c) the injury must arise out of that activity. The Court looked to the Supreme Court's decision in Calder for guidance on application of the "purposefully directed" test. It found three requirements: a) intentional conduct, b) aimed at the forum state, and c) defendant's knowledge that the injury would be felt in the forum state. The Court found the first element satisfied. With respect to the second and third elements, the Court noted some tension in its decisions applying Calder -- Janmark focused on an injury in the forum state while Wallace required something more than a forum state injury. Here, there is a forum state injury arising from tortious conduct deliberately aimed at a target in the forum state. That satisfies either test and is enough to exercise personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants. With respect to Wild Systems, however, there is no allegation that it acted with knowledge of Tamburo's location or with the purpose of inflicting injury in Illinois. Thus, personal jurisdiction does not exist with respect to Wild Systems. The Court next addressed the "arise out of" requirement. Although it pointed out the conflict among the circuits with respect to the proper test, it found no need to weigh in on the issue since it concluded that the alleged injury "arose out of" the defendants' contacts even under the most rigorous approach. Finally, the Court concluded that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants would not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. V. ALLEN (April 7, 2010)

American Honda Motor Co. ("Honda") manufactures motorcycles. One such motorcycle, the Gold Wing GL1800, is the subject of a class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs, purchasers of the GL1800, allege that the motorcycle has a design defect. The defect, they allege, results in excessive shaking of the steering assembly. The plaintiffs moved for class certification. They relied on a report prepared by Mark Ezra for support for their allegation of the predominance of common issues. In his report, Ezra had developed a standard for the dissipation of steering oscillation in motorcycles. He tested one GL 1800 and concluded that it did not meet this standard. Honda argued that the report did not meet the Daubert standard. The district court expressed its concern that the standard was not supported by empirical evidence and was not generally accepted by the engineering community and that his sample size of one was inadequate. Nevertheless, it refused to strike the report and granted the motion for class certification. Honda petitioned for leave to appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Evans, and Tinder granted the petition, vacated the denial of the motion to strike and the order certifying a class, and remanded. The Court acknowledged that it had not yet considered the specific question of whether a Daubert challenge must be resolved prior to class certification. It has, however, held that a district court must make all legal and factual determinations necessary to ensure that class requirements are met. The Court thus held that a district court must conclusively resolve challenges to an expert report if the report is critical to class certification. Here, the district court started the correct analysis but never actually decided the question. Instead, it simply decided not to exclude the entire report at what it referred to as the "early stage of the proceedings." The district court abused its discretion in doing so. In fact, the Court went on to conclude that the Ezra report should have been excluded under a Daubert analysis. Applying the Daubert factors, the Court noted the lack of evidence that the standard has been generally accepted or that any tests have been performed to support it. The Court also stated that the sample size of one would rarely be sufficient to extrapolate its results to an entire fleet of motorcycles. Without the report, the plaintiffs cannot meet the predomination requirement of class certification.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

FOX v. HAYES (April 7, 2010)

Kevin and Melissa Fox and their children, six-year-old Tyler and three-year-old Riley, lived in a small town in Will County, Illinois, about 60 miles from Chicago. On June 6, 2004, Tyler woke his father up at about 8:00 a.m. and told him Riley was missing -- Melissa had spent the night in Chicago. Riley's lifeless body was found in a nearby forest preserve several hours later. Although the parties’ versions of the investigation vary wildly, the jury could have found the following. Will County detectives, including Scott Swearengen, conducted the investigation. At some point, Swearengen began to suspect Kevin. On October 26, the Foxes were asked to come to the station to talk about the case. Although they thought they were about to receive new information about the murder, they were mistaken. They were immediately separated. Melissa was locked in a waiting area and told that an officer would be with her shortly. Instead, she was left alone for almost 4 hours. Meanwhile, Kevin was taken to an interrogation room where Swearengen accused him of killing Riley. The officers falsely told Kevin that they had fiber evidence implicating him and a surveillance tape showing him driving his SUV during the night. Kevin took a polygraph examination, which the officers told him that he failed. When Melissa offered her love and support to Kevin, Detective Hayes started screaming. He screamed at his fellow officers to remove Melissa from the room, he screamed at Kevin that he was a "f***ing murderer," and he screamed at Melissa. Continuing to use a lot of profanity, he screamed at Melissa that Kevin was a liar and a murderer, that he never loved her, that he killed her daughter, and that she had to "get over it." After that episode, the detectives continued the interrogation of Kevin. Hayes told Kevin that if he did not confess, he would make sure that Kevin was raped every day he was in prison. At one point, Swearengen told Kevin that the state's attorney would give him a deal if he admitted that he accidentally killed his daughter. He told him he would be out on bond the very next day and wood only have to serve 3-5 years in prison. Kevin decided to go along with the story and "confessed." He immediately renounced the confession the next morning when he was allowed to meet with a lawyer. Months later, his defense team had the DNA evidence tested. The test results showed conclusively that the DNA found on Riley's body did not come from Kevin. Kevin was released the next day, after 243 days in jail. Kevin and Melissa brought suit under both § 1983 and Illinois law against several Will County detectives. Kevin's allegations included due process violations, false arrest, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and punitive damages. Melissa's claims include loss of consortium, IIED, and punitive damages. After a six-week trial, a jury awarded Kevin $9.3 million and Melissa $6.2 million. The trial judge struck some of the punitive damage award and dismissed the case against a detective whose estate had settled. The end result was an award of $12.2 million. The detectives appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Evans, and Williams affirmed in part and reversed in vacated in part. The central issue on appeal is defendants' argument that they had probable cause to arrest Kevin and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on all the counts except the IIED claim. In order to resolve that issue, the Court had to identify the earliest time that the jury could have found Kevin to be under arrest and then assess whether a reasonable jury could have found that the defendants lacked probable cause to arrest Kevin at that time. On the first question, the Court had little difficulty identifying a time early in the interrogation when Kevin tried to leave the room and was told to sit down. The fact that he did not specifically ask to leave is only one factor in the analysis. Here the other factors --whether he knew he was a suspect of a crime, whether his movement was limited, whether the officers were engaged in a course of conduct, and whether he was in a private location -- all support a conclusion that he was under arrest. With respect to the second issue, the Court examined the long list of facts that the defendants argued supported probable cause. After it eliminated from the list facts that were disputed, irrelevant, or mischaracterized, the Court concluded that a reasonable jury could have concluded that they fell short of probable cause. On the merits of the defendants' argument that the substantive due process claim could not stand, the Court agreed with the defendants. It is well settled that a substantive due process claim cannot prevail where state law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. The state law false arrest and malicious prosecution claims do exactly that here -- the jury verdict on the due process claim must be set aside. The Court next upheld the verdict on Melissa's IIED claim. Although it agreed that the evidence of Melissa's distress was weak, it concluded that Hayes' abuse of authority in a particularly emotional environment was enough to uphold the claim. Finally, the Court addressed certain damage awards. Although it upheld a $2.7 million award for Melissa's loss of consortium because it found a rational connection between the award and the evidence, it concluded that the $1 million award on the IIED claim was excessive because there it lacked such a connection. The Court also concluded that the $1.6 million false arrest award to Kevin was not supported by the evidence since the false arrest award only covered the period of time between his arrest and the first issuance of process (36 hours). Instead of a new trial, however, the Court ordered a remittitur to $150,000 on Melissa's IIED claim and $16,000 on Kevin's false arrest claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ADVERTISING SPECIALTY INSTITUTE v. HALL-ERICKSON, INC. (April 7, 2010)

Advertising Specialty Institute (ASI) is in the promotional products business. It facilitates transactions between the buyers and sellers of corporate promotional materials. It has an affiliate, ASI Show, which puts on numerous trade shows throughout the year. Hall-Erickson and National Premium Show (NPS) put on The Motivation Show annually at McCormick Place in Chicago. In 2001, The Motivation Show and ASI entered into an agreement to co-sponsor a promotional product event at The Motivation Show. In the agreement, The Motivation Show gave ASI the right of first refusal regarding any other opportunity within the promotional products industry and also agreed that it would not extend the same opportunity to any other association or conference, specifically including by name ASI's close competitor, Promotional Products Association International (PPAI). Notwithstanding this agreement, The Motivation Show agreed to co-locate a show with PPAI. The district court determined that The Motivation Show breached its contract with ASI but, finding that ASI failed to offer sufficient proof of damages, awarded only nominal damages. ASI appeals the damages determination -- defendants cross-appeal the liability determination.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Wood, and Tinder affirmed. The Court concluded that the right of first refusal was clear and unambiguous in the contract and that The Motivation Show violated that provision and breached the contract when it put on the show with PPAI. The Court also affirmed with respect to the damages issue, although it did express its view that the damages case was not as weak as described by the district court. Under Pennsylvania law, damages are not recoverable beyond that which is established with reasonable certainty by the evidence. The Court found portions of the evidence did provide some basis for the claim of damages. However, giving deference to the findings of the District Court, the Court also noted several gaps in the evidence. For example, ASI never introduced evidence of specific companies that either attended the joint show at issue or would have attended an ASI show, it did not introduce evidence of PPAI's own revenue or profits from the show, and it did not produce evidence of what PPAI would have done had it not shared the show with The Motivation Show. Given the ambiguities and gaps in the evidence, the Court found no clear error.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

GRATZL v. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDGES (April 7, 2010)

Jeanne Gratzl has suffered from incontinence for several years. It has interfered with her ability to perform certain jobs and undertake normal commutes. All seemed well when she was hired by DuPage County for a “control room” court reporting position. Unlike most court reporting positions that require attendance at trials and in courtrooms, her position allowed her to manage her condition well. In fact, she managed it so well that her colleagues and superiors were not aware of it. In 2006, all that changed. The Chief Judge of DuPage County redefined the position of a court reporter – and required all court reporters to do the same job. That meant that all court reporters had to rotate through the control room and the courtrooms. Gratzl disclosed her condition to the Chief Judge. The parties engaged in a series of conversations attempting to reach an accommodation. The only accommodation Gratzl would accept was a full-time assignment to the control room. The Chief Judge offered several accommodations; including no trial assignments, assignments to courtrooms nearest the restrooms, and allowing her to use a hand signal to indicate to a presiding judge that she needed a break. When she rejected these accommodations, the County terminated her employment. Gratzl brought suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court granted summary judgment to the County on the ground that Gratzl was not disabled. Gratzl appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Manion, and Williams affirmed. The Court noted the similar requirements of both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. A plaintiff must show that she is a qualified individual, with a disability, of which the defendant is aware, and for which the defendant failed to reasonably accommodate. Although the Court briefly addressed whether Gratzl had a disability, which was the basis of the district court's ruling, it ultimately decided it did not have to resolve that issue. Instead, it addressed whether Gratzl was a "qualified individual," meaning whether she was able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodations. The Court focused on the employer's legitimate description of the functions of the job. Here, that included rotating through the control room and the courtrooms. The fact that Gratzl was able to perform the functions of her prior job was not the issue. The County eliminated that job for legitimate reasons. It is not required to maintain a job, for which an employee is qualified, that it no longer believes is necessary or appropriate. Since Gratzl basically concedes that she cannot perform the job as it is now defined, she is not a “qualified individual.” As an alternative ground, the Court concluded that the accommodations offered by the County were reasonable under the ADA. Her only real objection to the accommodations was that the disruption to the courtrooms necessitated by her frequent breaks would be an embarrassment to her. She is not entitled to reject a reasonable accommodation for that reason.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

LEAVELL v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (April 6, 2010)

Eva Leavell and her family own or lease hundreds of oil wells in southern Illinois. Most of the permits are in Ms. Leavell’s name -- but at least one is in the name of her husband, Daniel. Beginning in the year 2000 and continuing for several years, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources conducted a number of hearings to identify abandoned wells that should be plugged. The proceedings resulted in several disputes between the Department and Ms. Leavell, including a state court lawsuit. In 2008, the Department held a similar hearing concerning a well for which Daniel was the permittee. The Department sent a certified letter to Daniel -- but Daniel had already died. No representative was notified and the hearing proceeded. The Department ordered the well plugged. The estate has not challenged that ruling in any administrative or judicial proceeding. Ms. Leavell instead brought a lawsuit as administratrix of his estate, alleging that the Department violated Daniel's procedural due process rights in failing to provide sufficient notice of the 2008 hearing. The district court dismissed on the grounds of issue preclusion, apparently believing that the complaint referred to the same conduct that had already been litigated in state court with respect to the wells for which Ms. Leavell was the permittee. The court also denied Ms. Leavell's motion to reconsider. The court stated that the assertion that Daniel was the permit holder was raised for the first time in the motion to reconsider. Ms. Leavell appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Ripple and Rovner and District Judge St. Eve affirmed. The Court noted that, after concessions in the briefs and oral argument, the only issue on appeal was whether Leavell stated a due process claim and, if not, whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. Any procedural due process inquiry requires the identification of the property interest at issue and the necessary process due in connection with the deprivation of that interest. The Court distinguished between procedural due process claims based on established state procedure and those based on the random and unauthorized acts of state actors. With respect to the former, post-deprivation procedures are not necessarily adequate. In those cases, a pre-deprivation hearing may be required. With respect to the latter, however, pre-deprivation hearings are usually impossible because of the inability to predict when the random acts will occur. There, procedural due process requirements are satisfied if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Leavell does not assert that the state lacks an adequate notification procedure. Rather, she alleges that a Department employee failed to implement an existing procedure for notifying a permittee of a hearing. Therefore, only a post-deprivation remedy is required. Since she conceded that there are state remedies available and that she has not taken advantage of them, her claim must fail. With respect to whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice, the Court distinguished between dismissals for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or failure to satisfy a condition precedent and the case before it. Here, Leavell's failure to take advantage of an adequate state court remedy is a failure to allege a necessary element of the cause of action. The claim should be dismissed with prejudice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. v. RC2 CORP. (April 5, 2010)

RC2 produces and markets children's toys. In 2007, it recalled some of its wooden train sets that had been manufactured in China and sold in the United States. The recalled trains contained lead. A number of class-action suits were filed. RC2 looked to its insurers. It first filed a claim with its domestic insurer. That insurer denied coverage because its policies expressly excluded damages caused by lead paint. RC2 turned to its international insurer, ACE American Insurance Co. ACE denied coverage as well, on the grounds that its policies excluded damages from occurrences that took place in the United States. ACE sought a declaration that it had no duty to indemnify or defend – RC2 counterclaimed for declaratory relief and damages. The district court granted summary judgment to RC2 and awarded $1.6 million in defense costs. ACE appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Manion, and Hamilton reversed and remanded. The Court first looked at the language of the policies to determine if any ambiguity existed, giving the words their ordinary meaning. The policies cover bodily injury and property damage caused by an "occurrence" that takes place in the “covered territory" (which is defined as anywhere in the world other than the United States). "Occurrence" is further defined as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” The Court found that this language, particularly the connection between the accident and the exposure, supported ACE’s position that the occurrence took place in the United States. Nevertheless, it concluded that the use of the word "accident" in the policy itself might be considered ambiguous. An otherwise ambiguous term in the policy, however, can be rendered unambiguous when considered against the interpretation of that term by the courts over the years. Applying that principle, the Court concluded that Illinois and most other courts take a consistent approach -- that it is the location of the injury, not the location of some precipitating negligent act, the determines the location of an accident for insurance purposes. The Court rejected RC2's position that Illinois' adoption of the "cause theory" is dispositive. The "cause theory" is relevant only to a determination of the number of occurrences, not the location of occurrence. Therefore, the accident occurred were all the factors combined to create the force that inflicted the injury – and that is the United States.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ESTATE OF ESCOBEDO v. BENDER (April 5, 2010)

At 4:24 on a summer morning in 2005, Rudy Escobedo called 911 and told the dispatcher that he was high on cocaine, armed, and suicidal. According to the complaint filed by his estate, the Fort Wayne Police grossly mishandled the situation. It alleges that, over the succeeding five hours, the police: a) engaged the Crisis Response Team and the Emergency Response Team, b) did not follow normal communication protocol, c) never complied with Escobedo's request to have his psychologist at the scene, d) decided to use teargas to force Escobedo from his apartment, e) actually used twelve times the incapacitating concentration of teargas, f) were forced to cut off communication with Escobedo because of the strength of the teargas and the location of the officer in communication with him, g) broke down his apartment door and threw in more teargas and a flash bang grenade, h) broke down the door to his bedroom and threw in more grenades, and i) shot and killed him. Escobedo never threatened anyone other than himself. Escobedo 's estate filed a complaint pursuant to § 1983, alleging that the use of the teargas and flash bang grenades constituted excessive force. On the individual officers' motion for summary judgment, the district court granted in part and denied in part. Its denial of the officers’ summary judgment motion on the excessive force claim was based on the courts' ruling that they were not entitled to qualified immunity. The individual officers appeal.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Manion (concurring in part and dissenting in part) and Kanne and District Judge Kendall affirmed. The Court noted that the only issue before it was whether the individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Furthermore, the officers limited their appeal to the second prong of the Saucier qualified immunity test -- whether the law was clearly established at the time of the events in question that the use of teargas and flash bang grenades under the circumstances presented constituted excessive force. The estate has the burden of meeting the "clearly established" test but can do so in one of two ways: either by presenting a closely analogous case or by establishing that the conduct is so obviously a violation of constitutional rights that any reasonable0 officer would know. Although the Court briefly discussed the latter test, they declined to apply it because of its conclusions with respect to closely analogous case law. The Court addressed the case law with respect to teargas and flash bang grenades separately. With respect to teargas, the Court found controlling precedent and a clear trend in other circuits that the use of teargas is unreasonable when: a) the target is an individual, b) the individual poses no actual threat, c) there are no hostages, d) the individual has not committed a crime and is not attempting to flee, e) the individual, though suicidal, is not homicidal, and f) the individual suffers some incapacity. The Court found those elements present here. With respect to flash bang grenades, the Court noted that it had earlier found the use of such devices reasonable in Molina. It distinguished Molina, however, on the grounds that the officers there had serious personal safety concerns. It then cited dicta from other circuit cases which suggests that the use of the devices might not be reasonable if used in close proximity to a suspect or when the suspect is not dangerous. Although recognizing the relative dearth of precedent in the area and the lack of any precise guidance, the Court concluded that the holdings and dicta in the cases that do exist clearly show that the use of the device in the circumstances of this case is unreasonable.

Judge Manion concurred in part and dissented in part. With respect to the teargas, he agreed with the result although he would have reached it under the patently obvious violation route rather than the closely analogous case law route. He disagreed, however with the Court's conclusion on the use of flash bang devices. Judge Manion criticized the majority's treatment of Molina. Although he agreed that the cases were distinguishable, he considers Molina the leading authority in the circuit on the issue and should not have been limited to its facts in favor of dicta from other cases. Even the dicta in the other cases, he believed, did not come close to meeting the "clearly established" standard.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

BAILEY v. PREGIS INNOVATIVE PACKAGING (April 2, 2010)

Michelle Bailey was employed by the defendant Pregis Innovative Packaging -- that is, until they terminated her for accumulating too many absenteeism points during a 12-month period. She brought suit against Pregis under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The district court granted summary judgment to Pregis. Bailey appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Manion, and Hamilton affirmed. The Court noted the two issues raised by the appeal: a) whether the 12-month period during which an employee must accumulate 1,250 hours of service to be entitled to take leave is tolled during a period of leave, and whether Pregis retaliated against Bailey by not including leave time in its own policy of removing absenteeism points twelve months after they are imposed. The Court rejected Bailey's position on the first issue. Although it found no precedent, it also found no basis for the tolling in the statute and also found comfort in the line of cases that refused to adopt an expansive definition of the term "service" in the Act. Thus, Bailey is not entitled to "service" credit for a number of days preceding the twelve month period equal to her number of days of leave. With respect to the second issue, the Court first addressed whether the employer's policy of removing absenteeism points is an “employment benefit" under the Act. Although it gave no weight to a Department of Labor opinion letter concluding that such a policy is an "employment benefit" because the letter contained no reasoning, it concluded on its own that the letter reached the right result. Even if it is an employment benefit, however, the Court noted that the Act provides that taking leave cannot result in the loss of employment benefit that has already accrued. Benefits that have not already accrued are not protected. For example, the Act specifically provides that an employee on leave does not accrue seniority. For much the same reason, an employee on leave does not accrue service days toward the twelve months after which the employer forgives an absentee day.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

LONDON v. RBS CITIZENS (April 1, 2010)

After Chase Bank obtained a judgment against Andrew and Carolyn London, it issued a Citation to Discover Assets to Charter One Bank. The citation prohibited Charter One from allowing any transfer or disposition of the London’s property "not exempt from execution." Included with the citation was a specific notice indicating that Social Security benefits were exempt funds. Charter One froze the London's accounts, including one into which Social Security benefits were deposited electronically. The Londons demanded that Charter One release the exempt funds -- Charter One refused. Over the course of the next several weeks, additional Social Security deposits were made to the account. They also were frozen and their release denied. The Londons filed suit under § 1983, claiming that the bank violated their constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment as well as 42 U.S.C. § 407(a). The district court granted Charter One's motion to dismiss, concluding that the temporary freeze did not violate § 407(a) and that the Londons were afforded adequate process by a post-deprivation hearing in state court. The Londons appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Manion and Evans affirmed. In order to state any claim under § 1983, stated the Court, a plaintiff must allege the deprivation of a right guaranteed by the Constitution or laws and that the deprivation occurred at the hands of a person acting "under color of state law." Under that standard, private persons may not be sued for purely private conduct. Instead, for a private party to be held accountable under § 1983, the deprivation must be caused by the exercise of a right created or imposed by the state. Here, to the contrary, the bank was not following any state-imposed right or rule of conduct. The citation itself restricted its order to funds that were not exempt from execution and provided a notice that Social Security benefits were exempt. The bank's misapplication of the state law directive does not amount to conduct taken "under color of state law."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

WRIGHTSELL v. COOK COUNTY (March 31, 2010)

Lance Wrightsell is a former prisoner of the Cook County Jail. He brought an action against the County pursuant to § 1983. He alleged that the County's practice of making only one dentist available to the 10,000 inmates of the jail constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. After the district court denied his request for class certification, he agreed to an offer of judgment of $10,000 and renounced his right to appeal. John Smentek, another former inmate, also had a class action pending in the district court -- against the same defendant, alleging the same constitutional violation, and represented by the same attorney. Wrightsell, notwithstanding his renunciation, appeals the district court's denial of class certification. Smentek petitions for leave to intervene in the appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Wood, and Tinder denied the petition to intervene and dismissed the appeal. The Court addressed some of the complexities involved in class actions and appeals -- for example, the distinction between the named plaintiff as plaintiff and as class representative and the distinction between voluntary and involuntary settlements. Here, the named plaintiff, after denial of class certification, settled his individual claim and waived his right to appeal as class representative. The Court noted competing policy considerations but concluded that Wrightsell resigned his representative status when he waived his right to appeal. Thus, his appeal should be dismissed. The fact that Wrightsell settled, however, does not affect the rights of the other potential class members, including Smentek. But a potential class member who wishes to appeal the denial of class certification must first seek to intervene in the district court and must do so within the time period for filing a notice of appeal. Smentek did not -- his petition to intervene should be denied.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

BROWN v. CITY OF CHICAGO (March 30, 2010)

Chicago police officers Blackman and Long were on a plain-clothes detail in a Chicago neighborhood when they observed what they believed was an illegal drug transaction. During their pursuit of the suspects, Blackman came across Arthur Brown. According to Blackman, Brown was holding a gun. When he failed to follow the officer's orders to drop it, Blackman shot him several times. According to Brown and another witness, he did not have a gun. Instead, Brown claims that Blackman shot him in the back and then planted a gun in his hand. Brown was charged and convicted of several counts of aggravated assault, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, and unlawful possession of a weapon. His conviction was affirmed. Nevertheless, Brown brought a § 1983 complaint against Blackman, alleging that Blackman's conduct amounted to the excessive use of force in violation of the Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment to Blackman, concluding that the complaint was barred by collateral estoppel. Brown appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Manion and Tinder affirmed. The Court noted that Brown conceded that the elements of collateral estoppel existed in the case. Instead, he argued that two exceptions to the rule applied: that he was denied a fair hearing and that new evidence made the rule’s application unfair. The Court agreed that Brown's exceptions to the application of collateral estoppel were recognized in Illinois. However, the Court rejected their application in this case. First, with respect to the fair hearing exception, the Court concluded that the two evidentiary issue rulings at his criminal trial did not deny Brown a fair hearing. The third ground on which he based his “fair hearing” argument was the accusation by the prosecutor that Brown and his attorney made up a theory of conspiracy by police officers in order to “cash in” in a civil action against the City. The state appellate court found the remarks improper but did not reverse the conviction. Likewise, the Court found that the remarks, though improper, did not amount to the deprivation of a fair hearing. Second, with respect to the new evidence exception, the Court concluded that any discrepancy between a witness’ testimony in Brown's criminal trial and his deposition testimony in the § 1983 case was not significant enough to create the type of injustice that would bar the application of collateral estoppel.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SANDRA T.E. v. SOUTH BERWYN SCHOOL DISTRICT 100 (March 30, 2010)

In early 2005, local police arrested an elementary school band teacher and charged him with numerous counts of sexual abuse. Within days of his arrest, some of the victims and the victims’ families sued the school district and the principal. In response to the arrest and its attendant publicity, as well as the lawsuit, School District 100’s School Board retained the law firm of Sidley Austin. According to the engagement letter, Sidley Austin was to investigate the administration's response to the allegations of sexual abuse and provide legal services in connection with the investigation. The attorneys interviewed many employees and former employees. They took notes and prepared interview memoranda. The law firm delivered an oral report to the School Board in closed session and submitted a written summary of their investigation, which they marked confidential. After the preparation of the report, Sidley Austin did not participate directly in the litigation. The plaintiffs sought discovery from them, however. The firm turned over a number of documents, but withheld the notes and memoranda on the grounds of the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. The district court ordered the firm to turn over the documents, ruling that the law firm acted as "investigators" -- not as "attorneys." Sidley Austin appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Wood, and Sykes reversed. The Court first defined its terms: a) the attorney-client privilege protects communications between a client and its attorney, made in confidence, for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, and b) the work-product doctrine protects documents that are prepared by attorneys in anticipation of litigation. In this case, the district court's views were developed in a series of hearings relating to discovery requests against the School District. Sidley Austin was not provided notice or an opportunity to be heard. The Court concluded that the district court erred by focusing on letters from the School District to parents emphasizing the district’s desire to investigate and discover the truth. The district court did not, on the other hand, focus on what the Court considered the "most important" evidence, the engagement letter. The engagement letter specifically indicated that the investigation was a necessary prerequisite to the delivery of legal advice to the School Board. The engagement letter itself, as well as the conduct of the attorneys, brought this investigation within the attorney-client privilege under the Supreme Court's decision in Upjohn. The Court also concluded that the materials at issue were protected by the work-product doctrine. The district court's contrary conclusion was based upon its treatment of the law firm as investigators. The law firm was hired, at least in part, in response to the filing of the lawsuit. The Court emphasized that the work-product protection may actually be more than just an alternative ground for confidentiality. The attorney-client privilege may not cover all of the witness interviews, since some of the witnesses were not district employees.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

AL'S SERVICE CENTER v. BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA (March 26, 2010)

Al's Service Center was a gasoline service station and a franchisee of BP Products North America. In 2002, the State of Illinois decided to condemn a portion of the service station property. Although the portion of the premises subject to condemnation was small, the impact on the property was large. It would affect two of the five entrances and increase congestion. BP notified Al's of its intent to terminate the franchise relationship when the condemnation occurred. The condemnation went forward in June of 2005. Al's franchise contracts expired a month later -- BP asked Al’s to vacate the premises. Notwithstanding the condemnation, the expiration of the agreements, and BP's request to vacate, the parties continued to do business as usual. In the summer of 2006, Al's alleges that at BP failed to deliver gasoline for a period of twelve days. Later that same summer, Al’s asked BP to replace its roadside sign that that state had removed during construction. BP refused. Al's eventually abandoned its business in May 2008. It brought suit against BP for compensatory and punitive damages under both the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act and state law. The district court granted summary judgment to BP after denying Al’s request to add the state law claims. Al’s appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Rovner, and Sykes affirmed. The Court addressed the PMPA claims. Under the PMPA, a dealer is protected from termination of his franchise under certain circumstances. The Court looked for the termination. It concluded that the franchise was not terminated by the 2003 letter (there was no change in the relationship), it was not terminated by the demand to vacate the premises after the actual condemnation (although the Court concluded that BP could have terminated at that time), it was not terminated by the alleged supply interruption (although it may have been a breach of contract), and it was not terminated by the refusal to replace the sign (it did not meet the Mac’s Shell test for constructive termination). Thus, the Court concluded that the franchise came to an end when Al’s abandoned the premises on its own volition – not a violation of the PMPA. The Court also concluded that the lower court correctly refused to allow the state law claim amendments.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

CHANG v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORP. (March 26, 2010)

A number of residents of Taiwan brought suit against manufacturers of clotting factors. They allege that the defendants improperly processed donated blood in California and continued to sell it in foreign countries after they knew it was contaminated. The plaintiffs are mainly hemophiliacs who were infected with HIV from the contaminated clotting factors. The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants fraudulently induced a settlement agreement and they allege a breach of the settlement agreement. The district court dismissed the claims, some on the merits as untimely and others pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Evans, and Tinder affirmed. The Court first addressed the dismissals on the merits. It approved the district court’s conclusion that the claims were untimely both because they were filed outside the statute of limitations period and because the California court would apply the Taiwanese 10 year statute of repose (the plaintiffs were infected in the 1980s). Although the plaintiffs assert that their claims arose in California, the Court disagreed. The rule in California is there is no tort without an injury -- and the injuries occurred in Taiwan. A California court would apply the statute of repose either under its own “borrowing” statute or under a more general "balancing of interests" approach to conflict of laws. The Court next addressed the breach of settlement agreement claim which the district court dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds. The Court found that the relevant clause in the settlement agreement was ambiguous and that extrinsic evidence would be necessary. Most of the people with relevant evidence live in Taiwan. In addition, Taiwan law makes it difficult to gather evidence in Taiwan for use in another country. The Court found nothing that would favor the case being tried in United States – dismissal was proper. Another claim that was dismissed on forum non-conveniens grounds is the individual claim by a woman who claims to have been infected by her boyfriend. Although all the same considerations favored the dismissal of this claim, the Court examined it more closely because of the possibility the claim would be time-barred if brought in Taiwan. Dismissal under forum non-conveniens is improper if the other forum is inadequate and will not provide a fair hearing. Here, however, the California court would apply the Taiwanese limitations period just as the Taiwanese court would. Since the statute of limitations would be the same and the convenience factors all favor Taiwan, the Court affirmed the dismissal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

WEST BEND MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTEE CO. (March 25, 2010)

MDK owned a gasoline station in Goshen, Indiana. In 1996, it discovered that one of its underground gasoline storage tanks was leaking. Several years later, a group of nearby residents allegedly affected by the release sued MDK for personal injury and property damage. MDK requested coverage from its insurers, including West Bend Mutual Insurance Company ("West Bend") and Federated Mutual Insurance Company "(Federated"). West Bend agreed and eventually settled the case for $4 million. Federated declined based on its policy's pollution exclusion and other limitations. West Bend sued Federated. The district court granted summary judgment to Federated, concluding that the policy’s Pollution Exclusion provided a defense to coverage and that the Products-Completed Operations Hazard coverage did not obligate Federated to provide coverage. The court did not address whether the Known Loss Exclusion affected coverage. West Bend appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams, and Sykes (dissenting) affirmed. The Court identified its task as to construe the policy as a whole, giving words their ordinary meaning, and construing any ambiguities against the insurer. The principal focus of the Court's approach was the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in American States. That case also dealt with a release from a gasoline storage tank. The policy in question contained a Pollution Exclusion that excluded coverage for certain losses arising out of the release of "pollutants." The definition of "pollutants" was identical to that in the Federated policy and did not mention motor fuels or gasoline. The Indiana Supreme Court found that the policy did not unambiguously identify gasoline as a pollutant. It resolved the ambiguity against the insurer and found coverage to exist. Although the definition of "pollutant" was identical in the policies, the Court noted that the Federated policy's Pollution Exclusion did include "motor fuels," which included gasoline. Thus, the Court concluded that the Federated Pollution Exclusion unambiguously and explicitly excluded gasoline contamination from the policy's coverage. The Court proceeded to consider both the excess liability coverage and the Products-Completed Operations Hazard coverage as possible sources for coverage. It concluded that; a) the excess coverage was coextensive with the primary coverage, and thus also excluded gasoline contamination, and b) the Products-Completed Operations Hazard coverage did not cover the loss. That coverage only applies to abandoned product and knowingly completed market transactions, neither of which is present here.

Judge Sykes dissented. She concurred with the majority's treatment of the policy’s Pollution Exclusion but disagreed with its treatment of the Products-Completed Operations Hazard coverage. Specifically, she disagreed that the case relied upon by the majority created a general rule of insurance law that the coverage only applies to abandoned product or knowingly completed market transactions. Without that general rule, Judge Sykes would conclude that the plain policy language covers the loss.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

OJEDA v. GOLDBERG (March 25, 2010)

Gail and Ronald Goldberg were in the business of making high risk loans. They made such a loan in the amount of $600,000 to Ernest and Beverly Ojeda. The Ojedas provided stock valued at $800,000 as collateral. The original loan agreement was executed in August of 1998, with an original maturity date of October of 1998. The maturity date was extended many times, and the Ojedas continued to pay monthly interest until January of 2006. In late 1999, the company whose stock secured the original loan executed a reverse stock split, significantly reducing the number of shares and value of the collateral. At the time of one of the loan extensions in late 2001, two entities owned by the Ojedas, both of which owned McDonald's restaurants, guaranteed the note. Another maturity date came and went – and the Ojedas continued to make the monthly interest payments. In 2004, the Ojedas sold their interest in the McDonald's restaurants and used the proceeds to pay off creditors and to buy a pizza franchise. The Ojedas ultimately defaulted on the note in January of 2006, the pizza franchise failed a month later, and the Ojedas entered bankruptcy. In the bankruptcy proceeding, the Goldbergs asserted that the Ojedas’ liability on the $600,000 loan should be non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The bankruptcy court concluded that the Goldberg's were not justified in relying either on the value of the stock or the ownership in the restaurants and further concluded that, if there was reliance, the only amount excluded from discharge would be attorney's fees and unpaid interest. The district court reversed, concluding that reliance on the restaurant ownership was justified and that the entire amount was excepted from discharge. The Ojedas appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Rovner, and Williams affirmed. The Court first set forth the elements of a discharge exception under § 523(a)(2)(A): a debtor’s false representation, the debtor's knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, an intent to deceive, and justifiable reliance. The first three elements were not seriously contested. With respect to justifiable reliance, the Court noted that it is a lower standard than reasonable reliance, and only requires that one not rely "blindly" on a false representation if the falsity would have been obvious upon cursory investigation. Applying that test, the Court found no clear error in the bankruptcy court's determination that the Goldberg's reliance on the stock shares was not justified. Ronald Goldberg was an experienced businessman and he was aware of the company's troubles. He therefore should have made inquiry before continuing to extend the note. The Court found error, however, in the bankruptcy court's conclusion that the Goldberg's reliance on the Ojeda’s restaurant ownership was not justifiable. The Court concluded that the Goldbergs had no information that would have alerted them to the sale of the restaurants. Even though the restaurants did not secure the debt, the companies that owned the restaurants did guarantee the note. The sale of the restaurants materially affected each company's ability to perform as guarantors. Next, the Court concluded that the fraudulently induced forbearance fit within the definition of an "extension" or "renewal" of credit under § 523. Finally, the Court addressed the issue of the extent to which the forbearance was obtained by false pretenses. The test is whether the creditor: a) had collection remedies at the time of the false representation, b) did not take advantage of the remedies because of the false representation, and c) the remedies lost value during the extension period. The Court concluded that the Goldbergs met the test since the Ojedas had significant assets in 2004 that no longer existed at the time of default. Since the Goldberg's forbearance applied to the entire debt, the Court concluded that the entire debt was excepted from discharge, notwithstanding that the original loan involved no deception.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

MILLER v. HERMAN (March 25, 2010)

John Miller and his wife entered into an oral agreement with James Herman and his company to build the Millers a new home in Lakemoor, Illinois. As part of the construction, Herman purchased and installed windows made by Pella Products. According to Miller, the windows leaked from the time of their installation. Herman provided some additional caulking and Pella inspectors reinstalled one of the windows – but nothing helped. Miller filed an eight-count complaint against Herman and Pella in federal court. The federal claims were breach of warranty claims pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty -- Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act (the “Act”). In effect, the Act provides a federal forum to consumers for breach of warranty claims. Miller also pleaded state law counts for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty of habitability, common law fraud, and a violation of the Illinois consumer fraud act. Herman moved to dismiss the federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending that the fact that the windows were not "consumer-products" under by the Act deprived the court of jurisdiction. Pella filed a motion for summary judgment, also contending that the windows were not "consumer-products," but casting its argument as Miller’s inability to satisfy the elements of the claim as opposed to a failure of jurisdiction. Miller filed a consolidated response to the motions. The district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and granted the motion to dismiss. Miller appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Manion, and Tinder affirmed, as modified, the dismissal of the federal counts and vacated and remanded the dismissal of the state law claims. The Court first addressed the jurisdiction versus merits confusion below -- whether, if the windows are not covered by the Act, the court lacks jurisdiction or the plaintiff simply loses on the merits. The Court recited the Supreme Court's "bright line" test. In Arbaugh, the Supreme Court stated that a statutory limitation should be treated as non-jurisdictional unless Congress clearly states that it is jurisdictional. The "consumer product" language in the Act is not part of the jurisdictional section or otherwise clearly treated as jurisdictional. The Court concluded that it was therefore not facing a jurisdictional limitation. On the merits, the central issue in both the motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment is whether the windows were "consumer-products" under the Act. Finding the statutory definition both expansive and "somewhat hazy," the Court directed its attention to the FTC interpretations of the Act. It decided to give the interpretations a significant degree of deference since they were issued by the administering agency, they were issued using notice and comment procedures, they have stood the test of time, and they are based on the legislative history of the Act. The parties argued competing interpretations. Miller relied on 16 C.F.R. § 700.1(e), particularly on language that stated that construction products are "consumer products" when they are sold over-the-counter. The defendants, on the other hand, relied on 16 C.F.R. § 700.1(f), and specifically on language stating that construction materials are not "consumer products" when a consumer enters into a contract with a builder to construct a new home. Although the Court conceded that the FTC interpretations cited by the parties drew a fine line between what is and what is not a consumer product, it saw no reason to not respect the line. Following the interpretations, and the application of those interpretations by other courts, the Court concluded that the windows were not "consumer-products" within the meaning of the Act. As modified to reflect the merits rather than jurisdictional dismissal, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the federal counts. The district court dismissed the state law claims because it thought it had to, since it concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Although the general rule is that a federal court will not retain wholly state law claims once federal claims are dismissed before trial, it is not required to. Since the district court did not even consider its authority to retain the state law claims, the Court reversed and remanded for that purpose. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

FIRST BANK v. DJL PROPERTIES (March 24, 2010)

First Bank filed two lawsuits against DJL Properties in state court. In both cases, DJL filed class-action counterclaims. First Bank removed both cases to federal court, pursuant to the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act. Both district court judges to whom the cases were assigned remanded. First Bank sought leave to appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Rovner and Williams granted the petitions for leave to appeal but affirmed the district courts. The Court stated that the law is settled, possibly for over 150 years, that a state court plaintiff cannot remove the case to federal court, even if that plaintiff becomes a counter-defendant. The 4th and 9th Circuits have applied that long-standing general rule to the Class Action Fairness Act. The Court agreed. The Act specifically refers to the general removal sections of the statute where "defendant" is limited to a defendant, it uses the phrase "any defendant," and it uses a word that has a long-established meaning. The Court specifically noted the value in giving words used by Congress their standard meaning. Congress could have easily expanded the removal rights in the Act to counter-defendants. It did not. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ESTATE OF LUSTER v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. (March 23, 2010)

Wavie Luster lived alone in her home in Merrillville, Indiana. In late 2001, she was hospitalized after a fall. Upon her release from the hospital, she immediately moved into an extended-care facility, where she remained until her death in 2006. A fire caused extensive damage to her home a few months after her death. Her personal representative submitted a claim on the estate's behalf to Allstate Insurance Company, which had provided insurance on the home for years. Allstate denied the claim on the basis that her home had been unoccupied for over four years. Notwithstanding the denial, Allstate continued to bill Luster's representative and he continued to pay the premiums for more than two years after the fire. In late 2008, Allstate attempted to cancel the policy retroactive to November of 2001 and returned the premiums for that period. The estate brought suit against Allstate for breach of the insurance contract. The district court granted summary judgment to Allstate. The estate appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Ripple, and Wood reversed and remanded. The Court noted four relevant policy provisions: 1) the insured had an obligation to inform Allstate of any change in the use or occupancy of the premises, 2) the policy continued in effect after the death of the insured until the end of the premium period, 3) there was no coverage for a loss caused by an increase in hazard known to the insured, and 4) there was no coverage for loss caused by vandalism if the property was unoccupied for 30 consecutive days prior to the loss. With respect to notice requirement for a change in occupancy, the Court concluded that the 4+ years in which the house stood empty constituted a change in occupancy, notwithstanding the owner's desire to return. But Luster's failure to notify did not result in a automatic termination of the insurance contract. It was merely a breach, entitling Allstate to certain remedies, which may or may not have included rescission under Indiana law. In any event, Allstate took no action upon learning of the change in occupancy. It continued billing for and receiving the premiums for two years. With respect to the second provision, the Court concluded that the death clause could not revive a policy that had already lapsed -- it merely prevents a coverage lapse upon the death of the insured. It has no application here. The third provision is the provision the district court relied on in granting Allstate summary judgment. The district court ruled that leaving the house unoccupied constituted an increase in hazard as a matter of law. But the Court rejected that conclusion, stating that there is no rule that an unoccupied home for any period of time increases the hazard as a matter of law. Rather, an evidentiary hearing is required for Allstate to prevail on this ground. Finally, with respect to the fourth provision, the Court noted that there was no finding with respect to the cause of the fire. It may well have been caused by vandalism, and, if so, it certainly occurred more than 30 days before the house became unoccupied. The Court concluded that an evidentiary hearing on remand is required to resolve that issue, as well. Before it reversed and remanded, however, the Court had to deal with the estate’s argument that Allstate's waived its right to deny coverage by collecting the premiums for more than two years after learning that the house was unoccupied. The Court rejected the argument. If Allstate was entitled to deny coverage, it was entitled to do so because of the “increase in hazard” or “vandalism” exclusions, not because it had a right to cancel the coverage entirely. Collecting the premiums is not inconsistent with enforcing the exclusions in the policy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SCHMIDT v. EAGLE WASTE & RECYCLING (March 22, 2010)

Eagle Waste & Recycling hired Tammy Schmidt as a sales representative. Eagle is in the business of residential and commercial waste removal services. Schmidt spent most of her time outside the office on sales calls. When she was in the office, she managed her sales calls and plans, she worked on marketing and advertising plans for the business, she was responsible for customer service and customer database maintenance, and she ordered parts and authorized repairs. Schmidt was compensated with a base salary and a commission. Schmidt brought an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for overtime. Eagle filed for summary judgment – Schmidt responded but not in accordance with local rules. When Eagle pointed out the error, Schmidt sought to modify her response but she waited two weeks and did not file her proposed modification with her request. The court denied her request and granted summary judgment to Eagle. Schmidt appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Flaum, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed the procedural issue. It remarked that it “routinely” affirms district courts’ strict adherence to the local rules regarding summary judgment. Particularly here, where Schmidt did not respond quickly after she became aware of the error, the district court did not abuse its discretion. On the merits, the Court noted that an “outside salesperson” is exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. An outside salesperson is one whose primary duty is making sales and who is regularly engaged in activity outside the office. Although it is the employer’s burden to prove the exemption and the exemption is narrowly construed against the employer, the Court concluded Schmidt was exempt. She spent the majority of her time outside the office and much of her work at the office was incidental to her outside sales work. Alternatively, the Court concluded that Schmidt was exempt under the FSLA’s combination exemption, which exempts persons who perform a combination of otherwise exempt duties. The majority of Schmidt’s non-sales duties were duties that are exempt under the administrative employee exemption. If she does not qualify as exempt purely on the basis of her sales work, she certainly does on the basis of her combined sales and administrative work.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link