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

WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE STATE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE v. BARLAND (December 12, 2011)

The Wisconsin Right to Life's State Political Action Committee is an independent political committee that does not make contributions to candidates nor does it coordinate with any candidate or party. Wisconsin law places a $10,000 cap on an individual' s political contributions, whether they be to candidates, parties, or independent political committees. Two Wisconsin residents wished to make a $5,000 contribution to the PAC in 2010 but could not do so legally because of other contributions they had already made or planned to make. The PAC filed suit, alleging that the Wisconsin statute was unconstitutional to the extent it limited contributions to independent political committees. The PAC moved for a preliminary injunction, anticipating the fall 2010 elections. Instead, Chief Judge Clevert (E.D. Wis.), at defendants request, granted a Pullman abstention motion. The court based its ruling on the pendency of a case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court challenging an amended campaign finance rule. The PAC returned to the District Court in 2011, in anticipation of an unprecedented six state senator recall elections. The district court denied the motion. The PAC appealed and moved for an injunction pending appeal. A Seventh Circuit motions panel granted the motion and the Court expedited the appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit judges Posner, Flaum, and Sykes vacated the district court's abstention order and remanded with instructions to enter a permanent injunction. Before reaching the merits of the request for injunctive relief, the Court considered several preliminary challenges raised by the defendants. First, the Court concluded that the PAC had standing. The complaint alleged a proper pre-enforcement challenge. The PAC identified actual contributors who attested to their desire to make contributions in excess of the statutory limit. Second, the Court rejected the defendants' ripeness argument. The fact that the injunction pending appeal allowed the contributors freedom during the 2011 elections and their generalized desire to do so "in the future" does not establish a lack of ripeness. Future elections are only months away and the Court understood the contributors' "in the future" attestation to include those elections. Third, the Court rejected the contention that the conclusion of the 2011 recall elections made the claim moot. The Court noted that the claim probably could fit within the "capable of repetition yet evades review" exception but concluded that it need not decide that. The contributors’ claims were not limited to the 2011 recall elections. Fourth, the Court concluded that Pullman abstention was not appropriate. Although several aspects of the PAC’s case and the case pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court overlap, the $10,000 contribution limit is not one of them. The state court's decision will therefore have no impact on the constitutional challenge to the $10,000 cap. The Court turned to the merits. It noted that laws limiting political speech are subject to strict review. The Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between limits on political campaign contributions, which are frequently upheld when the limitation is narrowly drawn to serve a important government interest, and limits on political expenditures, which are subject to strict scrutiny and are usually not upheld. Citizens United held that the only government interest at play is political corruption or the appearance of corruption. Since the kind of quid pro quo political corruption that the government is concerned about does not exist in the context of a independent political organization, a limitation on its expenditures cannot survive constitutional scrutiny. Even though the Wisconsin statute at issue addresses contributions, and not expenditures, the result is the same.

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

GRACZYK v. WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY (September 28, 2011)

Congress passed the Driver's Privacy Protection Act in 1993 to limit the dissemination of sensitive information acquired by state departments of motor vehicles. In general, the Act prohibits the disclosure of personal information obtained in connection with a motor vehicle record, although it contains several exceptions. A class of Illinois licensed drivers brought suit against West Publishing Company, alleging that West acquires sensitive personal information from motor vehicle departments for the purpose of reselling it, all in violation of the Act. Judge Gettleman (N.D. Ill.) dismissed the complaint, concluding both of that the plaintiff class lacked standing and that the complaint failed to state a claim. The class appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Posner, Flaum, and Williams affirmed. The Court first addressed and rejected the district court's conclusion with respect to standing. The Act creates a private right of action for the improper disclosure of personal information. The plaintiffs have alleged that West's acquisition and use of the information violates the Act. If plaintiffs prevail, West could no longer obtain and sell that information. The plaintiffs have alleged injury in fact that would be redressed by a ruling in their favor. They therefore have standing. With respect to the merits, however, the Court agreed with the district court that the complaint failed to state a claim. Here, the class does not dispute that the ultimate recipients of the sensitive information (i.e., West's customers) have a permissible use under the Act. Furthermore, the class concedes that West can lawfully obtain sensitive information from motor vehicle departments, if that information is first requested by a West customer. The class' contention is that West cannot obtain the sensitive information in bulk, without a specific request, and later sell it for an authorized purpose. Although "authorized recipient," is not defined in the Act, the Court concluded that the class' interpretation was not consistent with Congressional intent. There is no meaningful distinction between obtaining information to respond to a specific request or storing information in bulk in order to respond more efficiently to later requests. The Court also noted that the Fifth Circuit agrees and that the Department of Justice has issued an unpublished letter approving the practice. The complaint does not state a cause of action and was properly dismissed.

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

IN RE: AQUA DOTS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (August 17, 2011)

Aqua Dots are small, colored beads that can be fused into different shapes when sprayed with water. Moose Enterprises contracted with a Chinese company to produce the beads. The Chinese company substituted a toxic chemical for a specified one. As a result, some children became sick. Spin Master, Aqua Dots’ distributor, recalled the product once it learned of the problem. The recall notice advised parents to keep the toy away from children and to contact either Spin Master or the retailer (stores like Wal-Mart and Target) for a replacement or exchange. Although the notice did not mention a refund, both Spin Master and the retailers generally honored refund requests. Over 3 million of the toys were removed from the distribution channel before sale and approximately 600,000 of the 1 million or so that were sold were returned. Notwithstanding the recall notice and the returns, a group of plaintiffs whose children were not harmed and who did not ask for a refund brought suits. The suit sought full refunds and punitive damages and were based on the Consumer Products Safety Act as well as express and implied warranties and state consumer protection statutes. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred a number of suits to the Northern District of Illinois for consolidated pre-trial proceedings. Judge Coar (N.D. Ill.) denied class certification. He concluded that the plaintiffs would be better off following the recall procedure than pursuing litigation. Therefore, the class action was not a superior method of "adjudicating the controversy" as required by Rule 23(b)(3). Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Rovner and Sykes affirmed. The Court first rejected the defendants' argument that plaintiffs lacked standing because there were no injuries. Conceding that there were no physical injuries, the Court nonetheless pointed out that the plaintiffs suffered a financial injury because they paid more for the beads than they should have. On the merits, the Court did not take issue with the district court's conclusion that a class action would be an ineffective way to resolve this dispute. It did take issue, however, with the district court's flagrant departure from Rule 23 in order to achieve its desired result. Rule 23 requires that a class action be a superior method of "adjudication." The Advisory Committee's notes to the rule illustrate that the drafters used adjudication in the legal sense. A recall is not an adjudication and the district court was wrong in considering it so. The Court reached the same result as the district court, however, by relying on Rule 23(a)(4) and Rule 23(b)(3)(D). The former requires a class representative that will "fairly and adequately" look after the class' interests. The Court concluded that a class representative who is willing to incur significant legal fees and notice fees in order to obtain a result already available to the class is not an adequate representative. The latter requires a district court to consider the difficulties in managing the class action. Here, the punitive damages claim rests on state law, which may differ from state to state. In addition, with no purchaser records, notice costs might exceed the price of the beads. The district court did not err in denying class certification.

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

CITY OF YORKVILLE v. AMERICAN SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY (August 12, 2011)

Ocean Atlantic Services was the real estate developer for the Westbury East Village subdivision in Yorkville, Illinois. Yorkville required Ocean to include certain public improvement projects in its plan, which would eventually be turned over to Yorkville. It also required Ocean to post a bond to ensure completion of the improvements. Ocean obtained a number of bonds from American Southern Insurance Company. Ocean ran into financial difficulties and was unable to complete the project. Several subcontractors, including Aurora Blacktop Incorporated, went unpaid. The City of Yorkville made a demand on American Southern. American Southern refused the demand but Yorkville did not pursue the matter further. Aurora filed suit against American Southern in the name of the City of Yorkville but for its own benefit. Judge Darrah (N.D. Ill.) concluded that Aurora had no standing to assert a claim on the bonds and dismissed the complaint. Aurora appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Rovner, Williams, and Hamilton affirmed. Aurora concedes it is not a party to the bonds but nevertheless asserts that is a third party beneficiary with standing to bring a claim. Relying on Illinois law and the Restatement (Third) of Suretyship and Guaranty, the Court distinguished between payment bonds and performance bonds. Illinois courts generally recognize third-party beneficiaries in the context of a payment bond, in which the surety is liable for the contractor’s promise to pay for all labor and materials. Illinois courts are less likely to find third-party beneficiary status in the context of a performance bond, where there is no promise to pay for labor and materials. The bonds at issue here contain no language suggesting that American Southern was liable to anyone other than the City of Yorkville. The district court did not err.

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

MORRISON v. YTB INTERNATIONAL, INC. (July 27, 2011)

YourTravelBiz.com (also known as YTB International) is based in Illinois and operates a business in which its customers purchase the right to act as a travel agent and sell travel services to the public. A number of its customers brought suit against YTB. They brought the suit as a class action on behalf of all of YTB’s customers and invoked jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The class alleged that YTB's business practices violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act's prohibition on pyramid schemes. The Act prohibits businesses in which a customer's income is based primarily on inducing others to participate rather than on the amount of goods or services sold. Judge Murphy (S.D. Ill.) dismissed the complaint. First, he ruled that YTB's transactions with the non-Illinois class members were not covered by the Act. Second, he ruled that he should decline to exercise CAFA jurisdiction over the remaining intrastate claims under § 1332(d)(4). Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Flaum and Rovner vacated and remanded. The Court rejected the district court's rationale for dismissing the case. CAFA jurisdiction is examined at the time of the filing of the complaint. Here, the plaintiffs proposed a nationwide class that met the CAFA jurisdictional requirements. Although the district court labeled its dismissal of the non-Illinois plaintiffs as one based on standing, it was wrong. The ruling that the Illinois Act does not cover transactions with out-of-state plaintiffs is a ruling on the merits, not a jurisdictional one. Notwithstanding the district court's error, the Court concluded that it also had to resolve the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act question. It likened § 1332(d)(4) to abstention, a concept under which a federal court has jurisdiction but declines to exercise it. If non-resident plaintiffs are covered by the Act, the claim is predominately interstate and a federal court should resolve the entire claim. Whether the non-resident plaintiffs are covered by the Act is governed by the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Avery. There, the court concluded that the Act applies if "the circumstances that relate to the disputed transaction occur primarily and substantially in Illinois." The Court found the factors here quite balanced: YTB's only office was in Illinois, it included an Illinois choice of law clause in its contracts, and it conducted training sessions in Illinois -- but the class members come from many different states, the class members' losses incurred in different states, and some states may not prohibit pyramid schemes. On balance, the Court concluded that the factors, although they may not compel application of Illinois law, they certainly did not defeat its application. The complaint therefore must survive a motion to dismiss.

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

AMERICAN BOTTOM CONSERVANCY v. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (June 14, 2011)

Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. operates a landfill near Madison, Illinois. The landfill is just southwest of the Horseshoe Lake State Park. Waste Management wants to build a second landfill even closer to the park. In order to do so, it wants to destroy approximately 18 acres of wetlands. Waste Management has applied to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for a permit to build the landfill. That application is pending. Waste Management also applied to the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit to destroy the wetlands. That permit was granted on the condition that Waste Management create twice as many wetlands as they destroy. American Bottom Conservancy, an environmental group, brought suit challenging the permit. Judge Murphy (S.D. Ill.) dismissed the suit on the grounds that the Conservancy failed to establish standing. The Conservancy appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Posner and Manion and District Judge Lefkow reversed. The only issue before the Court was standing. To establish standing, a plaintiff must establish that granting the relief sought will avert or mitigate injury to him caused by the defendants. The Conservancy filed affidavits from several of its members who enjoy watching the birds and wildlife in the park, particularly at the southern end near the wetlands. They assert that Waste Management's wetland destruction will adversely affect the wildlife population and, therefore, their enjoyment of the park. The Court concluded that plaintiff’s member’s reduced enjoyment was an injury caused or to be caused by Waste Management. The Court also found that the injury was not implausible. The habitat reduction will likely negatively affect the wildlife population and the replacement wetlands will not be able to support a new wildlife population for some time. If the permit is voided, the wetlands and the wildlife population will be preserved. That is enough to confer standing on the Conservancy. The Court rejected Waste Management's alternative argument to find in its favor on the merits. It an appellee wants a judgment affirmed on an alternative ground, it need not file a cross-appeal. If, however, an appellee wants a judgment changed (here, from a dismissal without prejudice to a dismissal with prejudice), it must file a cross-appeal. Waste Management did not.

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

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION v. OBAMA (April 14, 2011)

Presidential proclamations inviting citizens to pray are as old as the country itself, dating back to George Washington. Congress enacted a statute in 1988 that calls on the President to issue an annual proclamation setting aside the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer. President Barack Obama issued such a proclamation on April 30, 2010. Freedom From Religion Foundation filed suit against President Obama and his Press Secretary, alleging that the statute and the proclamations contravene the First Amendment. Judge Crabb (W.D. Wis.) agreed, concluding that the statute and the proclamation violated the First Amendment. She issued an injunction forbidding any further such proclamations. The President and his Press Secretary appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Circuit Judges Manion and Williams (concurring) vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss. The Court first addressed plaintiffs’ standing and found it lacking. In order to establish standing, one must show injury, causation, and redressability. The statute itself imposes a duty only on the President. The plaintiffs do not have standing to object to a statute that imposes duties only on others. But the proclamation is addressed to all citizens, including the plaintiffs. The proclamation, however, imposes no duty -- it simply makes a request. Plaintiffs cannot show any injury caused by such a request. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Newdow and Valley Forge Christian College as controlling precedent.

Judge Williams concurred in a separate opinion. She distinguished Newdow, disagreed with what she thought was the majority's conclusion that a change in behavior is required for standing, noted a number of Supreme Court decisions on the merits where the standing injury is hard to distinguish from that of the Foundation, but ultimately concluded that Valley Forge precludes standing.

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

KATHREIN v. EVANSTON (March 11, 2011)

Evanston, Illinois adopted a Demolition Tax as part of its policy to maintain affordable housing. Under the ordinance, every residential demolition carries with it a tax. There are exemptions if the owner replaces the building with an affordable housing, if the owner otherwise provides a affordable housing, or if the owner has lived in the building for three years and will continue to live in it for three years. Shortly after Michael and Victoria Kathrein agreed to sell their home in Evanston, the purchaser learned of the tax and demanded a reduction in the purchase price. The Kathreins refused and the sale was not consummated. The Kathreins brought suit pursuant to § 1983, alleging that the tax violated the United States and the Illinois Constitutions, as well as Illinois law. The Kathreins also challenged the constitutionality of the Tax Injunction Act (TIA). Judge Guzman (N.D. Ill.) granted Evanston's motion to dismiss. He concluded that he had no jurisdiction because of the TIA and that the Kathreins lacked standing to challenge either the TIA or the tax. The Kathreins appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Kanne, and Sykes affirmed with respect to the TIA challenge but reversed and remanded in all other respects. The Court began with a discussion of the TIA. The TIA prevents a federal court from enjoining or restraining the collection of a state tax if a state court provides a speedy and efficient remedy. But it applies only to taxes, not to every payment to the state. The Court identified four kinds of payments that are not taxes, including what it called "regulatory devices." A regulatory device uses monetary incentives to regulate behavior -- behavior that the state wants to deter. The Court concluded that the Demolition Tax was a regulatory device, not a tax, after considering several factors: a) it was part of a complex scheme aimed at deterring only those demolitions considered harmful, b) the substantial amount of the tax ($10,000), given the price elasticity of the market, deters developers from demolishing less expensive homes, c) the tax raises an insubstantial amount of revenue relative to Evanston's total revenue, and d) the revenue does not go to the general fund but instead is used to promote affordable housing in the city in other ways. Because the Court noted that the TIA did not divest the court of jurisdiction, it also concluded that it caused no injury to the Kathreins. They therefore had no standing to challenge its constitutionality. The Court concluded, however, that the Kathreins did have standing to challenge the tax ordinance. After identifying several bases for standing set forth by the Kathreins and amicus that did not confer standing (e.g., their status as tax payers, the increased cost of demolishing their house, the failed real estate transaction), the Court identified one that did. The uncontradicted testimony of the Kathreins and the developer who wanted to purchase the property established that the tax decreased the market value of the property. This reduction in value is an "injury in fact" and confers standing, even if the Kathreins have no present intent to sell their home. The Court remanded for consideration of their challenge on the merits.

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

PARVATI CORP. v. OAK FOREST (December 23, 2010)

In early 2004, Parvati Corp. decided to sell a motel it owned in Oak Forest, Illinois to Bethlehem Enterprise, Inc. The sale was contingent on Bethlehem's ability to secure municipal permission to operate a senior-living facility on the site. The Oak Forest Zoning Commission denied the request in early 2006, citing a recently enacted ordinance that prohibited the requested use. Parvati and Bethlehem filed suit seeking judicial review of the administrative decision. They also sought money damages under federal statutory and constitutional claims. Judge St. Eve (N.D. Ill.) affirmed the administrative decision and dismissed a state law administrative review count. She then, on plaintiffs' motion, dismissed the federal statutory and constitutional claims and entered final judgment. Several months later, Parvati (without Bethlehem) filed a new lawsuit reasserting the federal statutory and constitutional claims. After several more months, Parvati moved for post-judgment relief in the original case on the grounds that the City had misrepresented the validity of the ordinance on which it relied. The City responded on the merits but also maintained that Parvati lacked standing because it had since conveyed the property to its lender in lieu of foreclosure. The district court found that Parvati had standing, notwithstanding the sale of the property, because of the potential preclusive effect of the judgment on Parvati's new lawsuit. On the merits, however, the district court rejected the request for post-judgment relief because Parvati could have raised the ordinance’s invalidity before judgment. Parvati appeals.

In their opinion, Associate Justice O'Connor (Ret.) and Seventh Circuit Judges Williams and Sykes vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. The Court addressed the central issue of standing. Parvati certainly met all the standing requirements at the inception of litigation. It owned the property and suffered an actual injury traceable to the City's conduct. Once it transferred ownership of the property, however, it lost its standing. First, the available relief cannot help its cause. Next, the Court then rejected the district court's basis for standing -- the refiling of the federal statutory and constitutional claims. The Court noted that constitutional standing requires that the injury be "fairly traceable" to the City's conduct. Here, the injury (the potentially preclusive effect of the earlier judgment) is not traceable to any conduct of the City. Instead, it is traceable exclusively to Parvati‘s litigation strategy and conduct. The potential injury would not exist had Parvati pressed its statutory and constitutional claims in the original litigation. Thus, Parvati lacks standing and the court should not have entertained its motions.

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

STAYART v. YAHOO! (September 30, 2010)

Beverly Stayart sounds like a bit of a renaissance woman. Self-described as "sophisticated, well-educated, and highly intelligent," she has a University of Chicago M.B.A, engages in humanitarian efforts in support of baby seals and wolves and wild horses, researches genealogy, has published scholarly papers on the Internet, and writes poetry. One day, she conducted a Yahoo! Search on her own name. That search, and others that followed, produced troubling results. In addition to the links about herself and her activities, she found links to pharmaceutical companies, pornographic websites, and much more. She demanded that Yahoo! remove the offensive links. Yahoo! declined. Stayart brought suit alleging a violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Judge Randa (E.D. Wis.) dismissed the complaint on the grounds that she had no commercial interest in her name. Stayart appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Manion and Williams and District Judge Darrah affirmed. The Court noted that Stayart did not challenge the well-established rule that § 43(a) requires a showing of commercial interest. Instead, she argued that her extensive and varied activities and presence on the Internet established a commercial interest in her name. The Court disagreed. Section 43(a) is a remedy for a commercial plaintiff who seeks to protect its commercial interest. Stayart's activities may be laudable -- they are not commercial.

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

RK CO. v. SEE (September 22, 2010)

Dr. Jackie See founded Harvard Scientific Corporation (HSC) and was very active in its efforts to develop and market a product to treat sexual dysfunction. In 1997, the FDA discovered that HSC had falsified some findings in its new drug application. The FDA began an audit and instructed HSC to cease its clinical studies. Throughout 1997 and 1998, however, HSC continued to make public statements claiming that it was moving forward with its product and that the FDA had approved further clinical trials, when it had not. In mid-1998, RK Co. purchased $500,000 worth of HSC stock. By mid-1999, HSC was bankrupt and RK’s stock was worthless. RK sued HSC, Dr. See, and other HSC employees. After lengthy litigation, Dr. See (the last remaining defendant) and RK consented to a bench trial before a magistrate judge. Magistrate Judge Keys (N.D. Ill.) found for RK on each of the claims. See appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Rovner, and Williams affirmed. The Court first rejected See's argument that RK was not the "real party in interest" because it was not a true legal entity for several reasons: a Rule 17 (a) "real party in interest" objection may be waived, See waived it by not bringing it up until midway through the trial, the fact that he may not have known until trial is not excused since over seven years had elapsed since the complaint's filing, and the only consequence of a more timely objection would have been a substitution of parties. The Court also rejected See's standing arguments. It concluded that RK easily met the minimum requirements for constitutional standing (injury in fact, causation, and redressability) and that See waived the prudential standing argument. Next, the Court held that the magistrate judge did not err in finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the claims. See challenged the lower court's decision to admit certain deposition testimony but failed to include in the record the transcript of the proceedings below. The Court dismissed his challenge, being unable to meaningfully review the court's reasoning. Finally, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the lower court's award of prejudgment interest and attorney's fees. Prejudgment interest is presumptively available and See failed to specify any particular objections to the fees.

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

GOLDHAMER v. NAGODE (September 2, 2010)

Don Goldhamer and Robin Schirmer participated in a peaceful demonstration near a military recruitment booth during the Taste of Chicago festival in the summer of 2006. They expressed their opposition to military recruitment by handing out fliers and speaking to passers-by. The police asked them to relocate to a designated area. When they refused, the police ordered them to leave. Again they refused. They were arrested and charged with a city ordinance violation. The ordinance makes it unlawful to fail to disperse when ordered to do so -- but only in a situation where "three or more persons are committing acts of disorderly conduct in the immediate vicinity, which acts are likely to cause substantial harm.” A state court ultimately dismissed the charges for failure to prosecute. Goldhamer and Schirmer brought suit under § 1983, alleging that the ordinance was facially invalid under the First Amendment and that it was unconstitutionally vague. They sought an injunction and damages. Judge Grady (N.D. Ill.) granted plaintiffs summary judgment on liability and permanently enjoined enforcement of the ordinance. The City appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Hamilton vacated and remanded. The Court first noted that, although the district court had not disposed of all claims, it had limited appellate jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1). Before reaching the merits, the Court addressed the plaintiffs' standing on their request for injunctive relief. Among other things, they must show that a favorable decision from the court will prevent or redress the injury. The Court found that element absent. There is no evidence in the record of any disorderly conduct in their vicinity -- an essential element of the offense for which they were arrested. Given that their conduct was clearly outside the scope of the ordinance, the requested injunction is unlikely to prevent future injury. The Court concluded that this misuse of the ordinance by the Chicago police does not provide a basis on which a federal court should examine the constitutionality of the law. The Court added that plaintiffs of course have standing to challenge their arrest and seek money damages.

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

BAUER v. SHEPARD (August 20, 2010)

Indiana Right to Life, Inc. sends questionnaires to judicial candidates for election or retention. The questionnaires seek information on the recipient's views on abortion. The organization filed suit challenging certain provisions of Indiana's Code of Judicial Conduct relating to the political activities of judges and candidates for judicial office. The suit was dismissed for lack of standing. In the present suit, the organization is joined by a sitting judge and a candidate for judicial office. The plaintiffs challenge five provisions of the code, four current and one which was in effect in 2008: a) the current and former rules forbidding "commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of judicial office," b) the rule requiring recusal of a judge if he or she made a public statement "that commits or appears to commit the judge to reach a particular result," c) the rule limiting the partisan political activities of judges, and d) limits on fundraising. Judge Springmann (N.D. Ind.) concluded that the challenge to the earlier version of the code was moot and concluded that the challenged sections of the current code were all constitutional. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Manion and Evans affirmed as modified. The Court first concluded that the individual plaintiffs had standing because of the threat to prosecute and the probability of future injury. Next, the Court addressed the challenge to the no-longer current section of the code. It disagreed with the lower court's finding of mootness. The code's amendment in 2009 did not eliminate the possibility of a prosecution for an earlier violation. Nevertheless, given the significant number of unlikely steps that must occur before such a prosecution, the Court concluded that the matter was not ripe for adjudication. The Court then addressed the merits of the challenge to the four current provisions in light of the Supreme Court's decision in White and the Court's own decision earlier this year in Siefert. The Court held: 1) The solicitation prohibition is fundamentally the same as the one the Court upheld in Siefert. It is not facially unconstitutional and the state should be given an opportunity to make exceptions as appropriate. 2) Although Siefert did not address political leadership roles and speechmaking, it did uphold a prohibition on public political endorsements. Its analysis led the Court to conclude that the preservation of public confidence in the judiciary is enough of a compelling interest to uphold the leadership and speechmaking prohibitions of the Indiana code. White dealt with limitations on the judge's own positions -- it did not affect precedent dealing with a judge's impact on the other elections. 3) With respect to the "commits" provision, the Court distinguished between the questionnaire, which asked for a candidate's views on certain topics and which the Supreme Court said was allowable, and the code provision, which only prohibits commitments "inconsistent with the impartial performance" of one's office. The Court did recognize some vagueness in the language. However, instead of identifying hypothetical situations in which the state may act too broadly, the Court chose to assume that the state would act reasonably and continue to refine the meaning of the provision through the administrative processes. 4) Finally, with respect to the recusal provision, the Court found no constitutional issue at all. The recusal clause does not address a judge's role as candidate -- it addresses a judge's role as public employee. Under Garcetti, a judge's speech in his role as a judge is not protected speech. Furthermore, a state has every right to allocate a court case to a judge whose impartiality is not open to debate.

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

ROCK ENERGY COOPERATIVE v. VILLAGE OF ROCKTON (AUGUST 10, 2010)

Rock Energy Cooperative, a Wisconsin-based utility, and the Village of Rockton, Illinois were both interested when Alliant Energy announced its desire to sell certain power transmission assets. Rock Energy submitted a bid. Rockton voters approved a referendum authorizing the Village’s purchase of the assets. Rock Energy and the Village entered into an agreement that addresses a possible sale of the assets by Rock Energy to the Village. Rock Energy then purchased the assets from Alliant. On several occasions between 2007 and 2009, the Village repeated its desire to obtain the assets and even threatened to use the power of eminent domain. Rock Energy brought suit, seeking a declaratory judgment that Rockton violated state law in its referendum process and was not entitled to purchase the assets. Rockton, for its part, brought suit in state court seeking specific performance of the contract. The state court dismissed the suit with prejudice, concluding that the lack of a price term or formula in the agreement precluded an order of specific performance. Judge Kapala (W.D. Ill.) dismissed the suit, holding that Rock Energy lacked standing to challenge the referendum process. He also concluded that a forum selection clause in the agreement made venue improper for any claim Rock Energy was asserting under the agreement. Rock Energy appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Rovner, and Wood affirmed. The Supreme Court has held that Article III of the Constitution, particularly in the declaratory judgment context, requires a substantial controversy "of sufficient immediacy and reality" to warrant declaratory relief. The Court applied that principle to both threats to Rock Energy -- eminent domain and the contract. With respect to eminent domain, the Court concluded that the record contained no evidence that such a proceeding was imminent. In fact, to the contrary, the only actions the Village has taken in years are a few letters indicating their interest in condemnation. The Court also noted that the lack of any hardship to Rock Energy would stand in the way of its pre-enforcement challenge. The Court also concluded that the contract claim could not meet the Supreme Court's test. A state court has found the contract unenforceable, it contains a facially valid choice of forum clause, and Rockton has disclaimed its desire to rely on the contract. The case is not appropriate for declaratory relief under either theory.

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

BRANDT v. VILLAGE OF WINNETKA (July 20, 2010)

William Brandt, Jr. resides in Winnetka, Illinois and is active politically. He has hosted several receptions for candidates and officeholders at his home. In the aftermath of such an event in 1996 for President Clinton, Winnetka passed an ordinance that requires event sponsors to pay for the “special services” required by the events. Special services includes things like additional police presence and traffic control measures. Notwithstanding the ordinance, Winnetka has not asked Brandt to pay for any special services occasioned by the several events he has sponsored since its passage. The village has invoked the ordinance on three occasions -- one for President Bush and two for Laura Bush. Political committees, rather than the individual sponsor, paid for at least two of those events. Brandt filed suit pursuant to § 1983, seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinance violates the First Amendment. He alleged that it "chilled" his willingness to sponsor events and that it engaged in viewpoint discrimination on the theory that more controversial candidates would require more special services. Judge Dow (N.D. Ill) dismissed the complaint on the grounds that Brandt lacked standing. Brandt appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Tinder affirmed as modified. The Court noted that the district court dismissed for lack of standing because Brandt had not established an injury -- but also mentioned its belief that the issue was not ripe and that it may be an improper case to exercise the court's discretion to issue a declaratory judgment. The Court concluded that the district court was in error when it found an absence of standing. Standing can be found when there is an actual or impending injury, even though that injury may be small and not absolutely certain. Here, the Court found sufficient injury (as well as causation and redressability) to support standing. The Court concurred with the district court, however, in its decision not to exercise its discretion to issue a declaratory judgment. Brandt does not challenge the ordinance on its face -- only as applied. The record does not show that the ordinance will be applied in a discriminatory fashion or that it has had any effect on speech. Such an abstract record does not lend itself to a constitutional adjudication at this time.

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

IN RE: RAY (March 8, 2010)

Mark Ray and Berwick Black Cattle Company bought, sold, and raised cattle until involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions were filed against them. A committee was formed to represent their creditors. The Committee retained Becker & Poliakoff (“Becker”) as litigation counsel. Even after most of their assets were liquidated, unsecured claims remained. Becker represented the Committee in adversary complaints seeking recovery of preferences and fraudulent transfers. Becker filed an interim fee application in September of 2008. The next month, the Becker lawyer responsible for representing the Committee left the firm and his new firm substituted for Becker as Committee counsel. In December of 2008, the bankruptcy court conducted a hearing to consider a number of pending motions, including a motion to dismiss filed by the debtors. Becker neither appeared at the hearing nor responded to any motions. In January 2009, the court dismissed the case. Becker filed two emergency motions seeking reconsideration of the court's ruling, which were denied. The firm appealed to the district court. Although the district court concluded that Becker had standing, it affirmed the dismissal order. Becker appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Ripple and Rovner in District Judge St. Eve vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing. Before reaching the merits of the dismissal, the Court had to determine if Becker had standing. Before it reached the merits of standing, it had to determine if the lack of a cross-appeal resulted in a waiver. Unlike Article III standing, bankruptcy (or "prudential") standing may be waived by a failure to raise the issue. Even if waived, however, a court may raise bankruptcy standing on its own -- and the Court chose to do so here. On the merits of the standing issue, the Court stated that bankruptcy standing lies only with one who is affected pecuniarily by a court order and has attended and objected at a court proceeding. Becker concedes that it did not appear and object until it filed its motion to reconsider. Nevertheless, it claims that it met this requirement either because Committee counsel represented its interest at the hearing directly, or because it actually qualified as an administrative claimant and was therefore represented by Committee counsel at the hearing, or because of its motions to reconsider. The Court found no evidence of the first or second and rejected the third as a matter of law.

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

BOND v. UTRERAS (November 10, 2009)

Diane Bond filed a § 1983 action against the City of Chicago and several police officers in 2004. The parties settled. The court entered an agreed order of dismissal on March 23, 2007. About a week earlier, however, journalist Jamie Kalven filed a petition to intervene. Kalven sought to modify a protective order in the case and to obtain access to documents produced during discovery. The City opposed access -- Bond did not substantively respond to the petition. The court granted the motion to intervene and rescinded the protective order. The City appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Sykes and Tinder (concurring) vacated and remanded. Although the Court recognized its earlier decisions allowing permissive intervention to challenge a protective order, it emphasized that those cases involved ongoing litigation or access to records in the court file. Here, neither of those conditions is present. The case was over and none of the records sought were ever filed with the court. Therefore, stated the Court, the lower court should have addressed Kalven’s standing. Standing requires that an actual controversy exist at all stages of the proceeding. The Court noted that the circuit had never addressed the relationship between Article III standing and the rule for permissive intervention. This is not a typical permissive intervention case -- where the party seeks to come into an ongoing case on the side of one of the parties. Specifically not addressing whether standing is required for permissive intervention in an ongoing case, the Court concluded that independent standing was required to intervene in a case to challenge a protective order after the case was dismissed. The Court then rejected Kalven's standing on both right to discovery and First Amendment grounds. The Court based the former on the fact that none of the discovery sought had been filed with the court. The general right of public access to court documents is not implicated. The latter was based on the fact that the parties in the litigation stipulated to the protective order. No one placed any limitation on another's speech. Finally, the Court rejected any notion that the revocation of the protective order was within the lower court's inherent power.

Judge Tinder concurred in the result. He got there differently, however. Judge Tinder believed that Kalven had standing based on the public's general right of access to judicial proceedings. He concluded, however, given the timing of the request and the lack of a sufficient showing of abuse with respect to the protective order, that the district court erred on the merits.

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

THOMAS v. CITY OF PEORIA (September 3, 2009)

A lawyer for the city of Peoria sought and obtained a warrant for the arrest of Joshua Thomas. Joshua’s crime -- nine unpaid parking tickets. Sometime later, Joseph Thomas was stopped for a traffic violation. Although the names and addresses of Joshua and Joseph did not match, the driver's license number on the arrest warrant for Joshua did match that of Joseph. Joseph was arrested. He was later released when it was determined that he was, indeed, not Joshua. Joseph brought an action under § 1983 against the City and the lawyer who obtained the warrant. He alleged a deprivation of his Fourth Amendment and due process rights. The court dismissed for failure to state a claim. He then denied class certification. Thomas appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Posner and Tinder affirmed. The Court first addressed "zone of interest" standing. The Court explained zone of interest standing as a requirement of federal common law that limits the class of persons entitled to sue. Remoteness of injury is one of those limitations. Here, for example, assuming state law does not authorize an arrest for unpaid parking tickets and that such an arrest would therefore violate the Constitution, Joshua Thomas is the one within the class of people the policy is designed to protect. Joseph’s interest is to remote to be recognized. Alternatively, the Court went on to conclude that Joseph would fare no better even if he was within the zone of interest. The Supreme Court held in Moore that a otherwise reasonable arrest (which this is) is not unconstitutional simply because it was for an offense that does not authorize arrest. The Court easily disposed of the due process argument. Finally, the Court added that the individual defendant would in any event have absolute immunity as a prosecutor performing a prosecutorial function.

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

FLYING J, INC. v. VAN HOLLEN (August 20, 2009)

A Wisconsin statute prohibits a gasoline retailer from selling its product below cost plus a defined markup. The statute contains both state and private remedies of both an injunctive and damages nature. Flying J is such a gasoline retailer. It sued the state, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the statute on the grounds that it was preempted by the Sherman Act. The district court granted the injunction. During the time period for taking an appeal, the state decided not to appeal. An association of gasoline retailers asked the district court for leave to intervene both as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) and as permissive under Rule 24(b)(1)(B). The court denied the intervention on the grounds that it was untimely and that the association's members lacked the requisite interest. The association appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Ripple and Kanne vacated. Intervention pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) requires both that the party have an interest in the action and be within the class of persons the law is intended to protect. Here, the members of the association are the direct beneficiaries of the statute and would be directly harmed by the invalidation of the statute. The court concluded that this interest was sufficient for intervention. The Court also concluded that the association's motion was not untimely. Since their interest was simply to prosecute the appeal that the state decided to forgo, it is indeed timely. The Court did consider somewhat problematic the Rule 24(a)(2) requirement that a disposition of the action would impair the association's ability to protect its interests. The district court's injunction would not prevent one of the association's members from bringing a private action for damages or for an injunction -- although it would be a substantial inconvenience. Instead of resolving that issue, the Court turned to the request for permissive intervention. Permissive intervention does not contain the same impairment requirement. Relying on its earlier analysis of the association's interest and the timeliness of its request, combined with its conclusion that Flying J would not be prejudiced, the Court concluded that permissive intervention should be allowed. Instead of remanding to the district court, the Court treated the intervener as the appellant and ordered briefing.

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

POLLOCK v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (August 13, 2009)

For almost 100 years, the United States government has operated a gun range on the shores of Lake Michigan just north of Chicago. Bullets and shotgun pellets ended up in the lake. These bullets and pellets contain lead, a toxic substance potentially harmful to human health. Steven Pollock is an attorney who lives approximately 13 miles from the range. He is also the executive director of an environmental group interested in the protection of Lake Michigan. Pollock and the environmental group brought a suit against the United States, alleging that the release of lead into the lake violated several federal environmental laws. The plaintiffs supported their standing by submitting the affidavits of Pollock and another group member. They stated that they enjoyed watching birds and visiting parks in the general vicinity of the range, they drank water from the lake and they ate fresh and saltwater fish. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Manion and Tinder affirmed. The only issue before the Court was standing. The Court recited the general standing requirements -- a concrete threat of injury, an injury that is actual and not hypothetical, an injury traceable to the defendant's conduct, and an injury likely to be redressed through a favorable decision of a court. After reviewing some of the Supreme Court jurisprudence on standing, the Court addressed each of the injuries listed in the affidavits. First, the fact that Pollock drinks water from the lake does not support standing. He failed to carry his burden of showing that any alleged pollution affected his particular water supply. Second, Pollack’s statement that he eats "fresh water and ocean" fish does not even implicate Lake Michigan and does not support standing. Third, his general allegations that he enjoys "watching wildlife" and enjoys the "public areas" in and near Lake Michigan are not specific enough geographically to support standing. Since Pollock cannot establish his own standing, the environmental group cannot either.

Judge Cudahy concurred in a separate opinion. He criticized the Supreme Court for developing an "injury in fact" test that was "hopelessly confusing" to apply. Although he concurred, he found the alleged injury relating to drinking water to be a much closer question than the majority. Instead of relying on the failure of the allegations to create standing, Judge Cudahy looked at the evidence presented. Instead of a mere facial challenge to standing, the defendants here challenged the factual basis for Pollock's alleged injury. Judge Cudahy cited the government’s evidence that Pollock's community draws its drinking water from outside the area of the lake affected by the range and that the community has attributed the small amount of lead in its drinking water to pipes, not bullets. Relying on that evidence, Judge Cudahy concurred.

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

CRICHTON v. GOLDEN RULE INSURANCE COMPANY (August 5, 2009)

For almost ten years, John Crichton purchased group health insurance from Golden Rule Insurance Co. He did so as a member of the Federation of American Consumers and Travelers ("Federation"). He filed a class action in 2002, alleging violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), class allegations under other states’ consumer fraud statutes, RICO and common law fraud. The basis of each of the claims was that Golden Rule failed to disclose, when it sold its insurance, that renewal premiums escalated dramatically. The district court dismissed the claims for failure to state a cause of action. Crichton appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Evans and Sykes affirmed. With respect to the ICFA count, the Court relied on the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Avery. Avery held that a non-resident of Illinois did not have a cause of action under the ICFA unless the transaction at issue occurred primarily and substantially in Illinois. Crichton lives in Florida and Golden Rule has its principal place of business in Indiana. Golden Rule is incorporated in Illinois and maintains an office in Illinois but that is not enough to support an ICFA claim. The Court also agreed with the district court that, to the extent Crichton was asserting a claim under Florida's statute, it failed because Florida does not allow suits against insurers. The Court then held that an element of the common law claim of fraudulent concealment was a duty to disclose. No such duty existed on the part of Golden Rule, either through its relationship with Crichton or its partial disclosures. Finally, the Court concluded that the RICO claim was properly dismissed. A RICO claim must identify the "enterprise." Crichton simply describes the marketing relationship between Golden Rule and the Federation. That relationship is insufficient to amount to an enterprise on which a RICO claim can be based. 

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

APEX DIGITAL, INC. V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY (July 16, 2009)

Apex brought a breach of contract claim against Sears, alleging Sears owed it in excess of $80 million. Sears moved to dismiss for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It asserted that Apex lacked standing because it had assigned away its rights in the Sears receivables. Sears attached to its motion a letter from Apex attesting to that fact. When Apex offered no response, the district court granted Sears' motion. Apex appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Ripple and Kanne affirmed. The plaintiff, said the Court, bears the burden of establishing standing, an essential component of any case. The Court agreed with Apex that a sufficient standing allegation is enough to overcome a facial challenge. With respect to a factual challenge, however, where the challenger accepts the sufficiency but challenges the truth of the allegation, the district court is permitted to look beyond the complaint and view any evidence submitted. Because Apex failed to proffer any evidence to rebut its own statement in the letter offered by Sears, the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint.

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

HERSHEY v. PACIFIC INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CO. (JULY 7, 2009)

A number of investors sold 10-year U.S. Treasury notes short and, between May 9 and June 30, 2005, bought futures contracts in settlement of their obligations. These investors brought a class action against Pacific Investment Management Co. (PIMCO), alleging that PIMCO violated the Commodity Exchange Act by cornering the market in certain Treasury notes. The class alleges that PIMCO increased its ownership of the notes to the point where it created a monopoly price, resulting in losses to the class of more than $600 million. PIMCO challenged the class definition. It pointed out that many class members did not lose money because of the net effects of multiple trades. The district court certified the class. PIMCO appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Evans and Tinder affirmed. The Court rejected PIMCO's argument that a district court had to determine which class members suffered damages before certifying a class. The standing requirement is satisfied as long as one member of the class has a plausible damage claim. The fact that a class member ultimately is shown to have not been injured does not preclude class certification. The Court cautioned, however, that a class should not be certified if it appears that many class members have suffered no injury. Although the Court did not believe that to be the case, it invited PIMCO, on remand, to find out through a random sample of depositions. The Court also rejected PIMCO's argument that a conflict of interest existed among class members because they purchased the notes at different times. The conflict was only hypothetical and may never materialize.

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

WHITE EAGLE COOPERATIVE v. CONNER (January 12, 2009)

Congress enacted the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (“AMAA”) to regulate the milk producing industry. The AMAA establishes a minimum uniform price for milk in a particular region without regard to its end use. The Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) promulgates milk marketing orders in the different regions. The marketing orders identify the plants and handlers that are regulated. They also determine whether a particular supply of milk is included in the calculation of the blended price for the milk and whether a particular supply receives that price. A diversion limit is the maximum amount of milk a handler can divert to a plant not participating in the program and still be entitled to the blended price. In early 2005, the USDA began a rulemaking addressed at reducing the diversion limit standards. White Eagle Cooperative, a cooperative of milk producers, opposed the amendment. The USDA conducted a hearing in March and issued a interim rule on an emergency basis in July. The interim rule did reduce the diversion limits and became effective in October. A similar final rule was issued in 2006. White Eagle filed a complaint in federal district court. White Eagle alleged that the USDA: a) violated due process by allowing employees of the program administrator to participate in the rulemaking process, b) violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) by failing to do the proper analysis and support its certification, c) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by failing to support its emergency rule, d) improperly delegated rulemaking authority, e) violated the AMAA by considering end use in its rulemaking, and f) violated the APA by making a decision without adequate record support. The district court granted summary judgment to the USDA. White Eagle appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Kanne and Williams affirmed. The Court first addressed the due process argument. White Eagle argued that employees of the organization administering the milk marketing order were biased in favor of the producers because the producers could vote to eliminate the order and, it follows, their jobs. The Court found that White Eagle waived its argument. White Eagle knew as early as February 2005 that these employees were involved in the multi-day hearings and promulgation of the interim rule and yet did nothing. The APA required White Eagle to raise its concerns of bias in a timely manner. The Court next addressed White Eagle’s argument that the USDA failed to address the impact of the regulation on small businesses, as required by the RFA. The Court, noting that it had not yet addressed RFA standing, reviewed the jurisprudence developed in the D.C. Circuit. The Court followed that body of law and concluded that a small entity must be directly regulated by the program to have standing. Since the AMAA regulates handlers, not producers, the Court concluded White Eagle has no standing under the RFA.

The Court addressed two procedural arguments and two substantive arguments on the merits. With respect to the USDA’s support for its emergency rulemaking, the Court did criticize the agency for its lack of specific findings but found its identification of the problem “marginally sufficient” support for the rule. The Court also found no improper delegation of the Secretary’s authority. The Court rejected White Eagle’s substantive arguments: a) it found no support for White Eagle’s claim that the USDA could not consider the end-use of the product in promulgating a regulation, and b) it concluded that the USDA did not “dismiss” White Eagle’s arguments – it simply found them unpersuasive.

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