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

MARR v. BANK OF AMERICA (December 6, 2011)

In 2007, Richard Marr refinanced his home mortgage with Countrywide Bank. Summit Title closed the loan in February. Marr signed an acknowledgment at that time that he had been given two copies of the right to rescind notice, as required by the Truth in Lending Act. The closing agent gave Marr the closing documents, which he alleges he put in a folder and kept in a filing cabinet in his home. Two years later, his attorney inspected the folder in connection with an unrelated matter and discovered only one copy of the notice to rescind. Marr brought suit to rescind, relying on the statutory three-year rescission period when a lender fails to provide two copies of the notice. He testified that he removed nothing from the closing folder between the time he received it and the time he turned it over to his lawyer. The closing agent testified regarding the standard procedures for closing, which included providing the borrower with two copies of the notice. Marr testified that the February closing did not follow the standard procedures outlined in the agent’s affidavit. Judge Stadtmueller (E.D. Wis.) granted summary judgment to the defendants based on the rebuttable presumption created by Marr’s signed acknowledgment. The court ruled that his testimony was not enough to overcome the presumption. Marr appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Wood, Tinder, and Hamilton reversed and remanded. The Court first noted that the Act does create a rebuttable presumption but that it does so by saying that it "does no more than" create the presumption. The Court interpreted this language as a warning to courts to not overvalue the presumption. The Third Circuit has recently ruled that the borrowers testimony by itself is sufficient to overcome the presumption. The Court declined to adopt that extreme a position because Marr presented more than that: the folder contained only one copy of the notice, he testified that he removed nothing from the folder, and he testified that the closing agent did not follow standard operating procedures during closing. A reasonable jury could believe that he received only one copy of the notice.

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

HLAVACEK v. BOYLE (December 6, 2011)

Eric Hlavacek enrolled in the Southern Illinois University School of Dental Medicine in 2005. He failed a required course in the fall semester, failed it again the next semester, failed another course in the spring 2007 semester, and failed three courses (one of them twice) in the fall 2007 semester. In early 2008, the University informed Hlavacek that he was being dismissed for unsatisfactory academic performance. Hlavacek challenged his dismissal at a hearing, filed a grievance with the school’s Office of Institutional Compliance, and sought review through several school officials, including the President -- all to no avail. Hlavacek filed suit against the school, alleging they violated his procedural due process rights. Judge Murphy (S.D. Ill.) dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Hlavacek appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Wood and Tinder affirmed. The Court assumed that Hlavacek had a cognizable property interest in his dental school education and turned to whether he was afforded the required process. In the educational institution setting, academic dismissals require very little process. They require notice and a careful decision -- but they do not even require a hearing. Here, Hlavacek was put on notice that he was on academic probation, and he was given repeated second chances. Though he was not even entitled to a hearing, he was given a hearing and a grievance and several additional audiences before the dismissal was final. He received more than due process.

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

HUON v. JOHNSON & BELL (September 21, 2011)

The law firm of Johnson & Bell fired associate Meanith Huon in early 2008. Huon filed charges with the EEOC and the Illinois Department of Human Rights. He also filed suit in state court against several attorneys and the firm, alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The state court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the allegedly defamatory statements were protected by either the qualified or absolute privilege. Huon appealed that decision. Meanwhile, Huon asserted race and national origin discrimination claims, and a state claim for tortious interference with prospective business relationship, in federal court, again naming the firm and several of its attorneys. The defendants moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay under the Colorado River abstention doctrine. Judge Manning (N.D. Ill.) concluded that both suits arose out of the same core facts but that the lack of a final judgment in the state court case did not yet bar the federal case. She therefore decided to stay the federal case pending the resolution of the state appeal. Huon appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Posner, Rovner, and Wood vacated the stay and remanded for further proceedings. The Court noted that the Colorado River doctrine is a very narrow exception to a court's "virtually unflagging obligation" to exercise its jurisdiction. It is appropriate only in the most exceptional circumstances. The principal question is whether the cases are parallel and would be resolved by examining the same evidence. The Court concluded that much of the evidence Huon would need to prove discrimination would be irrelevant to his state court defamation and emotional distress claims. Even if the cases were parallel, the Court emphasized the exceptional circumstances required to justify a stay. The Court identified 10 factors in Adkins, many of which were not considered by the district court and those that were considered were considered rather perfunctorily. In any event, the Court concluded that the district court focused on the potential future res judicata effect of the state court appeal. That is not enough to justify the stay. The Court remanded the case to the district court "for another look."

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

NORINDER v. FUENTES (September 6, 2011)

Magnus Norinder, a Swedish citizen, and Sharon Fuentes, a United States citizen living in Texas, met on the Internet in 2006. Their romance flourished. They were engaged in Sweden in February 2007, they conceived a child in Sweden in April, they were married in Sweden in August. Fuentes returned to Texas to complete a fellowship and Norinder joined her in January of 2008. In July of 2008, the couple and their new child moved to Sweden. Their relationship soured, seemingly as quickly as it had blossomed. There were many fights, some physical. Both experienced professional setbacks. Fuentes accused Norinder of alcohol and drug abuse. Fuentes and their son traveled to the United States in March of 2010, ostensibly for a two-week vacation. Instead, Fuentes informed Norinder that she was remaining in the United States with their son. Within a few months, Norinder found them in southern Illinois. He filed a petition under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act. Judge Stiehl (S.D. Ill.) concluded that Sweden was the child's "habitual residence" and ordered him returned. Fuentes appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Manion, Wood, and Hamilton affirmed. The Act implements the Hague Convention, to which both Sweden and the United States are parties. It provides for the return of a child to his country of "habitual residence" when a child has been removed in violation of the Convention. Here, the Court first addressed Fuentes' contention that the district court limited her discovery rights improperly. It concluded that the district court acted properly in balancing the need for an expedited schedule in a case like this with Fuentes' need for discovery. The Court noted that Fuentes did not act expeditiously, that the district court accommodated several of her requests, that the district court actually bifurcated the hearing so as to resolve issues that were not related to her discovery request first, and Fuentes did not even object to the court's discovery order. On the merits, Fuentes asserted both that the United States was the child's "habitual residence" and that she carried her burden in proving that a return to Sweden would expose their child to grave harm. With respect to the former, the Court had no difficulty concluding that the district court did not err. Fuentes moved most of her personal belongings to Sweden, received permanent residency status there, took Swedish lessons, was negotiating for a hospital position, and retained no residence in the United States. With respect to the grave risk of harm exception, the Court noted that the district court specifically found Norinder more credible than Fuentes with respect to their testimony about his behavior and his treatment of their child. As a result, Fuentes did not meet the demanding clear and convincing evidence standard imposed by the Act. Finally, Fuentes challenges the district court's fee award. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's treatment of Fuentes' line item challenges and rejected her financial hardship argument because of a lack of support in the record.

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

ORTIZ v. CITY OF CHICAGO (August 25, 2011)

Acting pursuant to a confidential tip, the Chicago Police raided May Molina's apartment. They placed Molina under arrest. Molina happens to be a local civil rights activist and a harsh critic of police practices. Molina also suffers from diabetes, hypertension, and a thyroid condition. She takes medications for those conditions. Pursuant to department policy, she was not allowed to take her medication into the lockup. Molina died after approximately 27 hours of confinement. Her estate brought suit against a number of police officers involved in her detention pursuant to § 1983, alleging constitutionally inadequate medical care and an unreasonable delay in providing her a probable cause hearing. Judge Grady (N.D. Ill.) excluded the estate's expert witness and granted summary judgment to the defendants on both claims. The estate appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Rovner, Wood, and Evans (who, as a result of his death, took no part in the decision) affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. The Court first addressed the inadequate medical care count. It pointed out that, since Molina had not yet had a probable cause hearing, her estate’s claim was governed by the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard and not the Eight Amendment deliberate indifference standard. Since the defendants did not argue burdensomeness or police interest, the only reasonableness factors at issue are whether each individual defendant was on notice of a serious medical condition and causation. With respect to notice, the Court identified the allegations with respect to each individual defendant and concluded, in each case, that the allegations created genuine issues of fact. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Molina, each individual defendants either heard her ask for medical attention, heard her cry for help, were told by her lawyer that she needed to be hospitalized, or received numerous telephone calls from friends and relatives advising that she needed her medication. Therefore, the Court concluded that each was on notice of her serious medical condition. With respect to causation, the question is whether, had the defendants responded and taken her to the hospital, she would not have died or suffered pain and suffering. The district court applied too narrow a test when it required the estate to prove that it was the failure to provide her medication that caused her death. Because the defendants' expert testified that she died from an overdose of drugs she ingested at the time of the police raid, and because the district court excluded the estate’s expert testimony that she died because she was not giving her medication, the district court concluded that the estate failed to prove causation. But the estate did not need to prove that it was the lack of medication -- it only needed to prove that it was the failure to take her to the hospital. The Court therefore concluded that the expert testimony was not even required on that point. There was enough lay testimony in the record to establish causation. The Court also found the district court improperly excluded the expert testimony because of its misunderstanding of the factual record. With respect to the defendants' qualified immunity claim, the Court had no difficulty concluding that failing to provide medical care to a prisoner with a serious health risk satisfied the estate’s burden (without deciding whether it should apply the deliberate indifference or objectively unreasonable standard). On the unreasonable delay count, the Court agreed with the district court. The Supreme Court adopted a 48-hour burden shifting rule in Gerstein. Therefore, this 27-hour detention is presumptively reasonable. The estate failed to overcome the presumption.

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

STATE OF MICHIGAN v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (August 24, 2011)

The Chicago Area Waterway System is a system of canals and channels with locks and dams in northeastern Illinois. The System links Lake Michigan with the Mississippi River. Although it has been a boon to commerce, tourism, transportation, and public health, it has created some problems. Two particular species of carp that could wreak monumental ecological damage to the Great Lakes have migrated up the Mississippi River and have entered the System. The Army Corps of Engineers and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago have taken and are taking many steps to prevent the carp from reaching the Great Lakes. But the States of Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin filed suit under the federal common law of nuisance and § 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that the Corps and the District are not taking sufficient steps to avert the potential crisis. Judge Dow (N.D. Ill.) denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The States appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Manion, Wood, and Williams affirmed. The Court first stated the familiar elements needed for a preliminary injunction: likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm, the harm without an injunction is greater than the harm an injunction would impose on the defendants, and the injunction is in the public interest. The Court first addressed likelihood of success and expressed its disagreement with the district court's assessment of that as "modest." The Court concluded that the federal common law of nuisance applied to the State's allegations, rejecting defendants' arguments that it did not apply because either the defendants were not physically moving the fish themselves or that the allegations did not involve a traditional pollutant. The Court briefly addressed, without deciding, the underdeveloped argument that a federal common law of nuisance claim it does not stand against the United States. Although it found that excluding such claims would be consistent with the origins of the tort, it also questioned why the claim could not lie against the United States as an owner of a dam or other facility that might create a nuisance. In any event, given its ultimate conclusion, the Court proceeded on the assumption that the claim was appropriate. Next, the Court addressed the Corps' claim of sovereign immunity and concluded that APA § 702 waives sovereign immunity for these declaratory and injunctive claims. The Court moved to the defendants’ displacement doctrine argument. That doctrine addresses the relationship between the courts and Congress and provides that the exercise of federal common law by the courts in an area is no longer necessary once Congress addresses the question. The question presented here is whether Congress has done enough to displace the common law. In Milwaukee I, Supreme Court said that Congress had not displace the federal common law even though it had enacted several laws touching upon the subject matter. In Milwaukee II and American Electric Power, however, the Supreme Court held that more comprehensive legislation in the areas did displace the federal common law. Here, although the Court recognized some Congressional activity (for example, the National Invasive Species Act) in the area, it concluded that it fell far short of the comprehensive schemes in Milwaukee II and American Electric Power and did not displace the federal common law. The Court turned to the actual evidence presented by the plaintiffs on their claim and considered whether the identified activity was a nuisance and whether it was sufficiently threatening to require equitable relief. Although the Court found little error in the district court's factual findings that the potential for harm was significant, it disagreed with its conclusion that the risk of that harm occurring was not sufficient to warrant injunctive relief. The Court noted that the magnitude of the potential harm was tremendous, that it was increasing, and that it probably could not be undone if once it occurred. It therefore gave the benefit of the doubt to the plaintiffs that the risk was imminent and concluded that they satisfied the likelihood of success element needed for a preliminary injunction. With respect to plaintiffs' likelihood of success on its APA claim, the Court concluded that that claim was co-extensive with the federal common law claim and need not be addressed separately. The second element required for a preliminary injunction is irreparable harm. The Court concluded that plaintiffs met their burden of showing irreparable harm, relying on much the same evidence relevant to the likelihood of success element. Again, it concluded (as, apparently, did the parties) that the harm, if it occurred, would be genuinely irreparable. And again, given the severity of that harm, it gave the States the benefit of the doubt on the degree of risk that the harm would actually occur. The Court turned to the balancing of harms -- comparing the harm that would occur in the absence of an injunction with the harm an injunction would impose on the defendants. It concluded that the harm to the defendants in the event the injunction issued substantially outweighed any benefit to the plaintiffs for two reasons. First, it evaluated the specific requests for relief individually and found substantial problems inherent in the requests. Some of the requests provided little benefit at significant cost. At least one of the request was already under study by the Corps. Simply put, the record did not establish that the requested relief would do much to address the problem and, to the extent it would, it created other risks. It compared that "benefit" with the harm an injunction would impose on the defendants. It concluded that it would impose significant cost, it would increase the risk of flooding, it would negatively impact commercial and recreational boating, and it would interfere with police and fire protection services on the Chicago River. Second, the Court concluded that an injunction would interfere with the ongoing efforts of the federal and local agencies already addressing the problem. Federal courts, it said, should tread carefully when federal and state agencies, expert in the area, are already addressing a problem. In concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive relief, the Court emphasized that the landscape could change at any time. New evidence is being developed on an almost daily basis and the agency response is subject to political pressures and budgets. Any significant change in that landscape could be grounds for the district court's re-examination of the issue.

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

MICROMETL CORP. v. TRANZACT TECHNOLOGIES (August 24, 2011)

Micrometl and Tranzact were parties to a services agreement that went sour. Micrometl brought suit in state court, alleging that Tranzact had over-billed it by more than $100,000. Tranzact removed the case to federal court. In discovery, Tranzact learned that Micrometl had received funds from third parties that reduced Tranzact's liability to less than $40,000. It also learned that Micrometl received those funds prior to the time it filed suit. Although Tranzact knew that this information brought diversity jurisdiction into question because of the amount in controversy requirement, it did nothing. Discovery closed five months later and the parties participated in a settlement conference five months after that. It was only after the unsuccessful settlement conference that Tranzact moved to remand the case to state court. Magistrate Judge Nolan (N.D. Ill.) concluded that the plaintiff could not meet the amount in controversy requirement and remanded the case to state court. She denied, however, Tranzact's motions for fees and costs. Transact appeals from the order denying fees.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Flaum, Wood, and Tinder affirmed. The Court noted that the removal statute allows a district court to award fees and costs when a case is improperly removed. Usually, it is a plaintiff who seeks a fee award against a defend who improperly removed. Here, it is the defendant seeking fees. Although the Court noted the unusual situation, it concluded that there is no barrier to awarding fees to a defendant under the statute. The Court also concluded, however, that the district court did not err in refusing to award fees. The district court correctly concluded that Micrometl knew or should have known that it could not satisfy the amount in controversy requirement and should have alerted the court at the time of the removal petition. Equally troubling to the district court, however, was Tranzact's conduct. It waited 10 months after it discovered the truth to alert the district court to the situation. The Court rejected Tranzact’s nonsensical argument that it could not alert the court because of an order to participate in mediation. It also rejected the argument that the fact that a case can be remanded "any time" means that its delay in informing the court should not be considered. Tranzact's conduct wasted judicial resources and imposed costs on both parties. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award fees under § 1447(c). Tranzact also sought fees under § 1927. But § 1927 is a sanctions statute that requires a finding of bad faith. The Court deferred to the magistrate judge's finding of no bad-faith. It pointed out, for example, that Micrometl did not exaggerate its damages in order to get into federal court. It originally filed in state court and had no jurisdictional reason to overstate its damages.

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

WISCONSIN INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION v. GANNETT CO. (August 24, 2011)

The Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association is a non-profit organization comprised of all (with a few exceptions) Wisconsin public high schools as well as many private high schools and public and private junior high and middle schools. Its purpose is to regulate interscholastic sports and promote good sportsmanship. The Association sponsors post-season tournaments. Pursuant to its media policy, the Association retains the exclusive right to transmit or stream live content during those games and further reserves the right to grant those rights to others. The policy prohibits any other live coverage of a game but allows the use of up to two minutes to be used in a regularly scheduled sports or news program or Internet story. The Association has had exclusive broadcast agreements for a number of decades. In 2005, however, the Association entered into a ten-year agreement with American-HiFi, pursuant to which American obtained exclusive rights to stream events online. The Association's policy and the American contract provided that a newspaper could stream a game live for a fee if American chose not to do so. Some local newspapers were unhappy with the Association’s stance. When a local Gannett newspaper streamed four football games online without permission, the Association filed an action for declaratory judgment. Gannett removed the case to federal court and filed counterclaims challenging several aspects of the Association's policies. It asserted violations of the First and Fourteenth amendments under § 1983. Chief Judge Conley (W.D. Wis.) granted summary judgment to the Association. He found that: neither the American contract nor the fee the Association charged a newspaper to stream a game violated the First Amendment, the Association did not have too much discretion to refuse streaming licenses, and the newspapers had no copyright in the games they streamed. Gannett appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Bauer, Wood, and Hamilton affirmed. The Court first addressed its jurisdiction, since there is no diversity and the Court concluded that there was no federal Copyright Act issue in the case. Since the case was one for declaratory judgment, the Court looked to the hypothetical well-pleaded complaint had the defendant brought suit. In that hypothetical complaint, Gannett alleges that the Association (a state actor) is violating its First Amendment rights. That claim clearly arises under federal law. Turning to the merits, the Court emphasized that the state actor, the Association, was acting in a proprietary rather than regulatory capacity. When acting in a regulatory capacity, a state's actions must merely be reasonable under the First Amendment. The Court rejected Gannett's viewpoint bias argument, both on the ground that there was no such bias and on the ground that the viewpoint neutrality rule was simply not applicable in this context. The Association is free to promote values of its own choosing, either directly or through contractual relationships. The Supreme Court, in its Zacchini decision, distinguished between a newspaper's right to report on an event and its right (or absence thereof) to broadcast the entire event. The case also makes it clear that an entertainment producer can charge a fee in exchange for the right to broadcast an event. Although Zacchini concerned private actors, Forbes applied the same principles to state actors. Applying those principles to the facts, the Court concluded that the Association's contract with American did not run afoul of the First Amendment. The Court turned to the question of the Association's raising revenue through its contract. It found Gannett's argument "radical and unsupported" and foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.

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

BOYD v. TORNIER, INC. (August 24, 2011)

Tornier, Inc. is a national medical goods manufacturer, particularly in the joint replacement field. In 2003, it entered into exclusive distribution agreements with Boyd Medical in Missouri and Addison Medical in Iowa. The agreements provided that Boyd and Addison had exclusive distribution rights in their respective areas, that they could not sell products that competed with Tornier products, that Tornier could set sales quotas, and that the failure to meet a sales quota was grounds for termination. Even when it entered into these agreements, however, Tornier was developing a plan to convert these distributorships into dedicated Tornier outlets. Tornier told both Boyd and Addison of its plan and represented to both that they would be exclusive distributors of its new and expanded product line. Boyd and Addison began preparing for that opportunity by dropping other product lines. The truth, however, was that Tornier was not satisfied with Boyd and Addison and had already found replacement distributors. When the time came, it increased the sales quotas for both distributors and terminated them when they failed to meet the new quotas. Both Boyd and Addison went out of business and sued Tornier for breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. Magistrate Judge Wilkerson (S.D. Ill.) dismissed the negligent misrepresentation count as to Addison pursuant to Iowa law limitations on such a claim and sent the other claims to the jury. The jury found against Tornier on all claims and awarded $1.4 million in compensatory damages to Boyd, $1.1 million in compensatory damages to Addison, and $2 million in punitive damages for each. The district court set aside the punitive damages but otherwise upheld the verdict. Both parties appealed.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Bauer, Wood, and Sykes affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The Court first addressed the breach of contract claim, which was governed by Texas law under a choice of law clause. It found that the contract specifically excluded lost profits relief after termination. Texas law, however, provides that contractual limitations on damages are not enforced when there is a bargaining disparity between the parties. The district court allowed the jury to decide whether there was a disparity as a matter of fact. The Court disagreed and vacated the compensatory damage awards. Although Boyd and Addison were dependent on Tornier, they were so by choice. They were both sophisticated businesses and could have rejected Tornier's contract demands. The Court turned to the intentional misrepresentation claims, the elements of which are: a) a false, material representation, b) that the speaker knew was false, c) spoken with the intent to deceive, d) which was justifiably relied on, and e) causing damages. Tornier challenged both the justifiable reliance and the knowledge of falsity elements. The Court affirmed the district court, finding sufficient evidence of those two elements in the record to support the jury's verdict. On Boyd's negligent misrepresentation claim, Tornier argued that the same limitation that Iowa law imposed on Addison's claim (limiting it to professionals whose business is to give advice) should be imposed on Boyd's (which was governed by Missouri law). The Court found no Missouri case that imposed such a limitation and declined the invitation to expand state law. The Court turned to tort damages. The jury's actual damage award was based on six years of lost profits assuming a 20% annual growth rate. The Court had no difficulty with the six years of lost profits, even though the distributorship contracts were of a one-year duration. Both Missouri and Iowa allow tort damages beyond a contract term if there is an ongoing relationship. There was sufficient evidence of that relationship in the record for the jury's finding. On the other hand, the assumed 20% growth rate was not supported by anything other than conjecture and hope. The Court remanded for further damage calculation. Finally, the Court addressed the punitive damage award. An award of punitive damages requires a showing of actual or legal malice. It found that Tornier's behavior, although tortious, was not vindictive or so outrageous as to meet the punitive damages standard.

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

DIAZ v. KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL (August 8, 2011)

Jose Diaz, Ramon Peña, and Alberto Robles were all Kraft Foods employees in 2008. Diaz and Peña were hourly employees in the shipping department. Robles was a salaried senior technician in the support services department. They all reported to the same supervisor -- Peter Michalec. Diaz and Peña complained that Michalec discriminated against Hispanics. He assigned them the hardest tasks under the most difficult conditions and scrutinized their work much more closely than non-Hispanics. They also identified a number of discriminatory remarks he allegedly made. In late 2008, Kraft announced plans to outsource its shipping department. Diaz and Peña would lose their jobs. At about the same time, Kraft posted openings for two technician and five sanitation positions. Plaintiffs never made it on the list of interested candidates for the technician position. They claim they were not allowed to apply -- Michalec asserts they the simply failed to apply. Kraft hired two non-Hispanics for those positions. Diaz and Peña were on the list for the sanitation positions. Kraft decided to fill those positions based on seniority and neither Diaz nor Peña were selected. Robles has a different complaint. He received the salary of grade 2 employee but asserts that his position is a grade 3 position. Kraft responds that his position is a grade 2 position. Kraft concedes that two other employees in the same position are paid at a higher rate but only because they were transferred from a higher paying position and the company's policy is to allow them to retain their salaries for two years. Plaintiffs brought suit against Kraft under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Judge Guzman (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Kanne, Wood, and Sykes affirmed with respect to Robles but reversed and remanded with respect to Diaz and Peña. The Court first addressed the Diaz and Peña claims. Those plaintiffs presented their case under the direct method of proof. The Court disagreed with the district court's application of an inverted “similarly situated employee" approach. The district court had allowed the employer to satisfy its burden by identifying a person within the protected class who was not discriminated against. The fact that Michalec treated another Hispanic well might tend to negate discrimination, but is not enough to meet the employer's burden. The Court noted Michalec's treatment of Diaz and Peña by assigning disfavored tasks, Michalec's role in the hiring processes, and evidence that Michalec told another employee that he chose one candidate because he was white. The Court concluded that there was enough evidence to submit the question of ethnic bias to a jury. The Court turned to the Robles claim. It first noted that the evidence relied on by Diaz and Peña had no bearing on the claim since Robles’ claim arose months earlier. Although the record contained evidence of some insensitive remarks made by Michalec, the Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to create a triable issue of ethnic bias under the direct method. Under the indirect method, the Court concluded that the higher paid colleagues were not similarly situated because of the company's policy to allow employees to retain a higher salary after a transfer to a lower-paying job.

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

NATIONAL SHOPMEN PENSION FUND v. DISA INDUSTRIES (August 8, 2011)

In the early 2000s, DISA Industries, an Illinois foundry-equipment business, made contributions to its Union's multiemployer pension plan. After only two years of contributions, DISA closed the plant covered by the plan and ceased its contributions. The Plan calculated the company's withdrawal liability at $602 a month. The company challenged the calculation and stated its intent to begin arbitration -- but also began paying the monthly liability. Several months later, the Plan recalculated the monthly liability at $978 and asked for an increase. DISA disagreed with the recalculation and filed a demand for arbitration. It also refused to pay the increased amount. The Plan filed suit in the District of Columbia seeking the recalculated amount. The district court there expressed its doubts about the recalculation but thought the issue should be resolved by the arbitrator. The court also did not think that the statutory obligation to pay withdrawal liability pending a challenge applied in the case of a recalculation. The court therefore dismissed the complaint. After the district court opinion, DISA withdrew its arbitration demand. The Plan then filed suit in Illinois contending that the company was in default and liable for the full amount. Judge Kendall (N.D. Ill.) concluded that the Plan's withdrawal liability calculation was in error, that the company was therefore not in default, and dismissed the complaint. The Union appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Bauer, Wood, and Williams reversed. Under ERISA, an employer who withdraws from a multiemployer pension plan is obligated to contribute to the plan that amount of money that represents its employees' share of the unfunded benefits. The employer is usually required to make the payments requested by the fund during any challenge to the calculation. If an employer challenges the calculation but refuses to make the requested payments, the plan may file suit to collect those interim payments. If, however, an employer refuses to make the requested payments without challenging the calculation or the liability, the Plan may file suit to collect the entirety of the liability and the company forfeits any defense that it could have raised with the arbitrator. Here, the Court rejected the district court's conclusion that the Plan could only impose the recalculated amount through arbitration. Instead, the Court concurred with the position taken by the PBGC that the plan may reassess withdrawal liability while the amount is still being challenged in litigation or arbitration. The Plan's reassessment is therefore valid. Since DISA terminated the arbitration proceedings and has not paid the Plan's assessment, it is in default and has forfeited its defenses.

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

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM v. PHOENIX INTERNATIONAL SOFTWARE (August 5, 2011)

Phoenix International Software and the University of Wisconsin each registered the mark CONDOR with the Patent and Trademark Office. Phoenix has used the mark since 1978 and registered it in 1997. Wisconsin registered its mark in 2001. Each mark refers to computer software, although the Phoenix system is designed principally for mainframe systems and the Wisconsin system is designed principally for individual computers. Phoenix petitioned theTrademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel Wisconsin's mark on the ground that it creates confusion. The Board granted the petition and canceled the mark. Wisconsin challenged the Board's decision by filing an action in federal district court. Phoenix counterclaimed for trademark infringement and false designation of origin. Judge Crabb (W.D. Wis.) reversed the Board’s determination on Wisconsin's motion for summary judgment and also dismissed Phoenix's counterclaims on sovereign immunity grounds. Phoenix appealed.The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded that part of the district court's judgment granting summary judgment on the trademark dispute but affirmed the district court (with Judge Wood dissenting) with respect to its finding that the university was entitled to sovereign immunity. Phoenix petitioned for rehearing.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Flaum, Wood, and Tinder granted the petition for rehearing limited to the sovereign immunity question, reaffirmed its earlier ruling reversing summary judgment, and also reversed the district court on its finding of sovereign immunity. Although the rehearing was limited to the sovereign immunity issue, the Court did readdress the summary judgment issue. It concluded, as it had done earlier, that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment to the Board of Regents, particularly in light of the TTAB finding and the standard of review. The central question is whether customers are likely to be confused. The TTAB applied the correct standard and looked at the right factors. The district court was wrong when it criticized the TTAB be for considering the actual nature of the products and it was also wrong when it focused so heavily on the registration materials themselves. The TTAB gave three reasons for canceling Wisconsin's mark: they were identical, they performed similar functions, and a sophisticated purchaser would likely believe that there was some relationship between them. Although Wisconsin put on additional evidence challenging these conclusions, it was not sufficient to eliminate any fact issue. The Court turned to sovereign immunity. Although the Eleventh Amendment confers immunity upon a state, it is not absolute. First, Congress can authorize suits against states. Although Phoenix's counterclaims did rely on statutes in which Congress subjected states to liability, the Court doubted that either would survive a constitutional challenge. The Supreme Court has already struck down provisions for state liability in the false advertising and patent infringement areas. Second, a state may voluntarily waive sovereign immunity by its litigation conduct. In Lapides, the Supreme Court held that Georgia waived its sovereign immunity when it removed to federal court a complaint that had been filed in state court. The Supreme Court stated that it would be "unfair" to allow a state to both invoke federal jurisdiction and then to assert sovereign immunity to deny that very jurisdiction. The Court found that the majority of its sister courts had read Lapides to state a general rule, as opposed to being limited to its facts. The Court also concluded that the general rule need not be limited to instances of removal. Here, Wisconsin did not raise sovereign immunity during the administrative proceedings and chose to challenge the findings of those proceedings by filing a separate federal lawsuit. The Court explored the four alternative paths that Wisconsin could have taken that would not have resulted in a waiver -- do nothing after the TTAB finding, refuse to participate at all in the administrative proceedings, file suit in state court, and appeal the administrative findings to the Federal Circuit. One principle that stands out in Lapides is that a state should not be able to advance its litigation position by choosing a federal forum and then asserting sovereign immunity. The Court identified at least three advantages that inured to Wisconsin's benefit because of its choice of the federal forum. The Court then had to resolve whether Wisconsin's waiver extended far enough to permit Phoenix’s federal counterclaims. Relying on guidance from the Supreme Court and its sister circuits, the Court concluded that the waiver was broad enough to encompass compulsory counterclaims. Under Rule 13(a), a compulsory counterclaim is one that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence. The Court had no difficulty, applying the "logical relationship" test, to conclude that the Phoenix counterclaims arose out of the same occurrence as Wisconsin's challenge. Phoenix, therefore may pursue its counterclaims on remand.

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

KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. v. KOELLER (July 27, 2011)

The Sny Island Levee Drainage District has operated a levee and drainage system in central Illinois for over 100 years. The system is designed to protect a 114,000-acre area from Mississippi River flooding. Over 99% of the affected area is agricultural. The rest is residential, commercial, utility, and railroads. The Kansas City Southern Railway Co. and the Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (the "Railroads") own a combined 355 acres. For decades, the District has funded its operations by assessing a per-acre fee for each landowner in the area. For the last 20 years, the fee has been $8.50 an acre. The District found itself in a precarious financial position after it experienced severe flooding in 2008 and a substantial increase in diesel fuel prices. The Commissioners decided they needed a $10 per acre fee increase. They also decided to stop charging the fee on a uniform basis. They decided pipelines, railroads, and utilities were under assessed. They hired an expert in flood protection projects and asked him to calculate the benefits for the non-agricultural properties. The expert did the analysis but he was short on hard data and used questionable methodologies. When the analysis resulted in a number that the Commissioners could not support, they "refined" the numbers. As a result, the assessments for the railroads increased by 4800-8300%. The Commissioners also exempted land within the municipalities, under the supposition that the cost of collecting the small assessments outweigh the benefits. Then they assumed that all the commercial and industrial properties other than the railroads, pipelines, and utilities were within municipal limits. The Commissioners filed a petition for authorization with the County Court, published notices in the local newspapers, and sent notices to landowners. The notice referred to a $10.00 increase per acre but did not mention the benefit-based assessments for railroads, pipelines, and utilities or the exemption for land within municipalities. The Railroads did not object and the court certified the assessment. When they first received their new assessments, the Railroads filed suit under the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act, which prohibits discriminatory taxes against railroads. The District moved to dismiss on Rooker-Feldmangrounds. Judge Scott (C.D. Ill.) denied the Rooker-Feldman motion and ruled that the assessment was a tax under the Act. She denied the preliminary injunction, however, because the Railroads did not submit evidence that their lands’ assessed value exceeded its true market value by 5%. After a bench trial, the court found in favor of the District, again because of the Railroads' failure to submit evidence of their lands' true market value. The Railroads appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Bauer, Wood, and Williams reversed and remanded. The Court first rejected the Rooker-Feldman argument. The doctrine only applies to state court "losers." The Railroads were not even present for, much less parties in, the state court proceedings. There is no judgment against them. Furthermore, they are not seeking a review of the state court order. They are asserting an independent federal cause of action under the Act. Two questions were presented to the Court on the merits: whether the assessment was "another tax" under the Act and, if so, whether the tax was an impermissible discrimination. With respect to the first, the Court looked to the statute, the Supreme Court, its own jurisprudence, and its sister circuits' interpretations to conclude that the assessment was a tax. It raises general revenues for use by the entire District. It is not tied to any specific project or landowner. The Court turned to whether it was discriminatory. It first had to decide who to compare the Railroads to: all property owners, other commercial and industrial property owners, or the Railroad's competitors. It recognized that the three other subsections of the section of the Act at issue dealt with different types of taxes but included reference to commercial and industrial taxpayers. Given that the fourth subsection addressed the same kinds of discrimination, the Court concluded the appropriate comparator group is the other commercial and industrial taxpayers. Since the Act does not define discrimination, the Court adopted the ordinary meaning of the word -- a failure to treat persons equally without reasonable distinction. Here, the record establishes that the Commissioners adopted a proportionately heavier tax on the Railroads. The Court cited the "inadvertent" exemption for the properties outside the municipal boundaries, the exemption for the commercial and industrial properties within the municipality, and the questionable methodology. In addressing the appropriate remedy, the Court noted that the Act provides an exemption to the Tax Injunction Act. Notwithstanding the exemption, however, the Court noted that a federal court should act with restraint in such matters. Therefore, an injunction should not enjoin the entire scheme but should eliminate the discriminatory effects by enjoining the 2009 recalculation and allowing the District another shot at a non-discriminatory assessment.

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

NOVA DESIGN BUILD, INC. V. GRACE HOTELS, LLC (July 26, 2011)

Grace Hotels entered into a contract with Nova Design Build to provide architectural services in connection with its construction of a Holiday Inn Express in Waukegan, Illinois. In addition to the architectural fees, Grace promised to pay a $15,000 penalty if it did not use Nova's construction affiliate to build the hotel. The parties' relationship soured during the design phase and Grace did not use Nova's affiliate to build the hotel. Nova completed the design and registered a copyright for it. Because its computers had been stolen, Nova had to create a duplicate of its designs to satisfy the Copyright Office’s requirement of submitting a copy of the designs. Nova then sued Grace, alleging federal copyright infringement as well as state law claims. The gist of Nova's allegations is that Grace infringed its copyright when it used Nova’s designs to construct the hotel. Judge Der-Yeghiayan (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to Grace on the ground that Nova's design re-creation did not satisfy the Copyright Office requirements.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Kanne and Wood affirmed. The Court first addressed federal jurisdiction. Under the doctrine set forth in T.B. Harms Co., a federal court has jurisdiction under the Copyright Act only if the complaint seeks a remedy granted by the Act, as opposed to a contract remedy. In Harms, the issue concerned the ownership of the copyright, not its infringement. Here, however, Nova clearly alleges infringement and seeks a Copyright Act remedy. The fact that Grace has set forth a state contract law defense is immaterial. On the merits, the Court disagreed with the district court's resolution. The Copyright Act requires the registrant to submit a complete copy of the designs seeking to be registered. The submission must be "virtually identical" to the original designs. The Court concluded that the record supported Nova's claim that the submitted designs met the requirement and did not support the district court's speculation that Nova had to resort to employees’ memories to re-create its designs. Notwithstanding its disagreement with the district court on the registration requirement issue, the Court nevertheless affirmed. Before inquiring into whether the completed hotel infringed Nova's design, a court must identify the aspects of Nova's design that he can be protected. The only design aspects that can be protected are those that have originality. Here, Nova's designs were based on a Holiday Inn Express model. Although Nova added some features and changed others, there was not enough originality or creativity in the changes to qualify for Copyright Act protection. Grace was entitled to summary judgment.

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

VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY (June 3, 2011)

Ball State University's Dining Services department has employed Maetta Vance for over 20 years. She was a substitute server from 1989-91, a part-time catering assistant from 1991-2007, and now is a full-time catering assistant. She filed a lawsuit against the University in 2006 alleging Title VII claims of hostile work environment and retaliation. She included several specific allegations of hostile work environment, including: a) co-worker Davis hit her, b) supervisor Kimes made her feel unwelcome, c) co-worker Davis threatened her, d) co-worker McVicker used a racial epithet, e) co-worker McVicker called her a "porch monkey," and f) supervisor Adkins made faces at her. The University responded each time she filed a complaint. It disciplined McVicker for using the epithet. On other occasions, it found no basis for discipline. Her retaliation allegations related to diminished work duties and denial of overtime, and a reassignment to menial tasks in connection with her promotion. Judge Barker (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to the University. Vance appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Wood, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed Vance's hostile work environment claim. The elements of that claim are that the work environment is objectively and subjectively offensive, that the conduct was based on race, that it was either severe or pervasive, and that there was employer liability. With respect to employer liability, a plaintiff must either show that the harassment came from supervisors or that the employer was negligent in discovering or fixing the situation. The Court rejected supervisor liability. First, Davis was not her supervisor. Although other circuits have expanded the supervisor term to include persons with authority to direct daily activity, the Seventh Circuit has limited the term to those who have the authority to directly affect the terms and conditions of employment. Second, Adkins was her supervisor but did nothing more than make ugly faces at her. Third, Kimes was her supervisor and may have engaged in sufficient harassment to create employer liability but there was no evidence that his harassment was based on Vance's race. In the absence of supervisor harassment, the Court turned to co-worker harassment. It concluded that Vance could not establish that the University failed to take reasonable steps to discover and correct the harassment. Every time she made a complaint, the University investigated and responded appropriately. The Court turned to the retaliation claim. Ironically, Vance's retaliation claim is based on her promotion. She admitted that she received more pay and benefits but alleged that her responsibilities were diminished. The Court concluded that the promotion was not a materially adverse employment action. Although she may have enjoyed it less, she sought it out knowing that the responsibilities would be different from her prior position. The only other employee occupying the position had similar responsibilities. Finally, the Court rejected her claim that the University retaliated against her by giving her fewer overtime hours. Although she did work fewer overtime hours than her co-worker, the two were not similarly situated. Her co-worker worked more regular hours, was available more often, and took fewer sick days and leaves of absence.

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

DIGITECH COMPUTER v. TRANS-CARE, INC. (May 20, 2011)

When Trans-Care, a medical transportation company, decided to update its software, it approached Digitech. Digitech's first proposal contained a “satisfaction guarantee” – a provision that allowed Trans-Care to walk away from the contract in the first 90 days without paying any licensing fees. Several months later, after much negotiation, Digitech submitted a final agreement, which Trans-Care signed. The final agreement did not include the guarantee, although Trans-Care return the signed agreement with its own purchase order that purported to incorporate earlier proposals and promises. The final agreement also provided that: a) monthly licensing payments began 90 days after installation, b) Digitech could suspend services if payments became 60 days delinquent, c) Digitech could recover attorney's fees incurred in collecting unpaid balances, and d) both parties had to provide notice and an opportunity to cure prior to termination. Digitech completed the software installation on January 1, 2007. Trans-Care experienced substantial problems with the software and gave notice on March 1 that it invoking the 90-day guarantee. Digitech refused to honor the notice and eventually locked the system on April 3 for Trans-Care's payment delinquency. Digitech brought suit for breach of contract -- Trans-Care counterclaimed for fraud. Magistrate Judge Hussmann (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to Digitech on the fraud claim and, at trial, found for Digitech also on its breach of contract claim. The court awarded damages based in part on its view that the contract had 33 months remaining. It also awarded Digitech its attorneys' fees for prosecuting the breach of contract case, but not for defending the counterclaim. Both sides appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Wood, Williams, and Tinder affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part. The Court first affirmed the dismissal of Trans-Care's claim that Digitech committed fraud when it refused to honor the 90-day provision. The Court focused on the negotiation history. It pointed out that the provision existed in early draft proposals but dropped out during negotiations. The fact that it did not even appear in the final agreement was enough for the Court to conclude there was no fraud. The Court turned to Digitech's breach of contract claim. It concluded that Trans-Care breached the contract when it attempted to walk away from the deal without providing notice and an opportunity to cure. The Court rejected the notion that Trans-Care’s purchase order brought the guarantee back into the contract. The Court did part ways with the magistrate judge on damages, however. The magistrate judge calculated damages based on the remaining contractual term. But the Court noted that Digitech chose to terminate the contract on April 3. Since Trans-Care's licensing fee obligation did not begin until the 90-day period expired on March 31, Digitech is only entitled to licensing fees for the three days in April. With respect to attorneys' fees, the Court agreed that Digitech was not entitled to its fees for defending against the counterclaim since those fees were not incurred in connection with collecting an unpaid balance. Finally, the Court noted that the amount of fees awarded on the breach of contract claim should be reassessed in light of its significant reduction in damages.

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

CHICAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS v. VILLAGE OF SCHAUMBURG (May 2, 2011)

The Village of Schaumburg, Illinois, owns the Schaumburg Renaissance Hotel. The Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters represents the hotel's housekeepers. On August 18, 2009, in the midst of stalled collective bargaining negotiations, the Union staged a demonstration. The local police allowed the demonstration to proceed after the Union agreed to follow a specified route and to control noise. When they attempted a repeat performance on August 31, the police turned them away. They filed suit on September 2 under § 1983 alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights. A couple of months later, the Village refused the Union's request to distribute pamphlets at the hotel. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment -- but the Union focused its argument on the pamphlet incident rather than the demonstration incident. Judge Lindberg (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the Village, concluding that the Union forfeited its claims regarding the demonstration and never amended its complaint to address the pamphlet issue. The court denied the Union’s belated request to amend its complaint. The Union appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Posner and Wood and District Judge Adelman affirmed. When the Union filed its complaint in September, it complained only of the August event. The Union never amended its complaint but was abundantly clear in its summary judgment papers that it was abandoning the August claims. The district court was correct in granting summary judgment on the August claim – the only claim before it. Although the Union could have and did request an opportunity to amend, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying that belated request.

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

BLOMBERG v. SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL (April 14, 2011)

Employees of Service Corporation International brought a class action in Illinois state court against their employer, alleging that it failed to properly compensate them for hours worked, in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. SCI removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Judge Coleman (N.D. Ill.) remanded the case to state court on the grounds that SCI failed to establish the $5 million minimum amount in controversy required by CAFA. SCI petitions for permission to appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Wood, and Hamilton granted the petition and reversed and remanded. When one party challenges CAFA’s amount in controversy requirement, the other party must establish that fact by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court appreciated the difficulty a party has in establishing that fact when the plaintiff controls many of the facts and reveals little information about the scope of its claim. Here, SCI did provide some support for this jurisdictional fact. It cited deposition testimony in a similar case against it in another state regarding the number of allegedly unpaid hours. If the Illinois class members had similar allegedly unpaid hours, the threshold would be met. It also cited a Virginia case against it by significantly fewer class members wherein the class itself asserted CAFA jurisdiction. The Court found this evidence plausible and sufficient to support SCI's good faith estimate of the amount in controversy requirement. Unless it is legally impossible for them to recover $5 million, which the plaintiffs have not even argued, removal was appropriate.
 

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

RENNELL v. ROWE (MARCH 25, 2011)

Richard Rennell and Randall Rowe created a joint venture in 2004 to own and manage manufactured-housing communities in several states. Rowe provided the financing and Rennell managed the properties. After a few years, notwithstanding excellent results from Rennell, Rowe hired someone to manage the properties and no longer needed Rennell. In 2007, Rowe told Rennell that he was terminating the joint venture. He offered Rennell approximately $300,000 for his share in the venture, notwithstanding that they had recently valued it at $3.5 million. Rowe also demanded an answer within 24 hours and threatened to make the termination public if Rennell did not accept the offer. Rennell did sign the termination agreement and promised not to sue Rowe. Notwithstanding that promise, Rennell filed suit alleging two different theories of RICO liability. Judge Pallmeyer (N.D. Ill.) dismissed the complaint. Rennell appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Kanne, and Wood affirmed. The Court began its analysis with RICO's definition of "racketeering activity" as "any act or threat involving . . . extortion." Thus, the critical question for the Court was whether the complaint’s allegations described an act of extortion. The Court’s own jurisprudence establishes that extortion exists when one uses violence or threat of violence to obtain property, even if one has a claim to the property. In addition, if one has no claim to property, the use of fear, even economic fear, may amount to extortion. Economic pressure is not extortion if one has a claim to the property issue. Turning first to the question whether Rowe had a claim on Rennell's joint venture interest, the Court examined the contractual relationship between the parties. The joint venture agreement itself could be terminated only for cause -- but one of the "causes" was the termination of any one of the property management agreements. The property management agreements could be terminated without cause. Therefore, Rowe was contractually entitled to terminate a property management agreement and then terminate, for cause, the joint venture agreement. Rennell argued that even if the termination was proper, Rowe's conduct was improper because of the small payment offered, the narrow time frame for acceptance, and the threat to make the termination public. The Court rejected this argument. Rowe was a hard bargainer. But Rennell was free to reject the offer and sue for what he thought he was owed. And the threat to make the termination public, even if it would negatively impact Rennell’s business, is not extortion. The Court ended by noting that Rennell could still pursue his state law claims in state court.

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

OWENS v. HINSLEY (March 18, 2011)

While imprisoned in the Menard Correctional Center, James Owens became unhappy with prison conditions and with the prison's response to his complaints. So he started a hunger strike. He spent 21 days in his cell and four in the infirmary before he ate again. He lost 20 pounds but suffered no medical complications. Within weeks, he began a second hunger strike. This time, he spent 25 days in his cell and almost 3 weeks in the infirmary. He ate again only after the prison began force-feeding him. He lost 30 pounds on his second hunger strike but again suffered no medical complications. He submitted an informal grievance complaining that he should have been moved to the infirmary sooner. His counselor ignored the grievance. The following year, on two separate occasions, Owens was assaulted by cellmates, complained to guards, and was assaulted again before the guards did anything. Owens brought suit pursuant to § 1983. The complaint contained seven separate claims against 15 different defendants. Chief Judge Herndon (S.D. Ill.) dismissed five of the seven claims at screening and granted summary judgment to the defendants on the other two. Owens appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner and Wood affirmed. The Court first noted that the complaint violated the rules of civil procedure regarding joinder and should either have been severed into two separate actions or dismissed for improper joinder. However, since improper joinder is not jurisdictional, the Court addressed each claim's merits in turn. His claim that prison officials violated the Constitution when they ignored his grievances is frivolous -- prison grievance procedures are not required by the Constitution. His claim that his First Amendment right to demonstrate was violated when the prison force-fed him is frivolous -- there is no constitutional right to refuse life-saving medical treatment. His claim that the guards failed to protect him from cellmate assaults fails -- no reasonable juror could find that the guards deliberately ignored a substantial risk of serious harm. His claim that the prison was deliberately indifferent when it did not move him from his cell to the infirmary during his hunger strikes fails, although not for the reason relied upon by the district court. His allegation, in his verified response to summary judgment,  that he submitted an informal grievance is the equivalent of an affidavit. The court should have considered it. The claim still fails because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies when he did not follow up his informal grievance with a written grievance to a designated prison official. The district court dismissed the other three claims without prejudice because the allegations of misconduct were not linked to a particular defendant. Although an amended complaint may have corrected some of that problem, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend when Owens failed to comply with local procedure, failed to follow the court's instructions for refiling, and filed claims that had already been dismissed at screening.

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

SPANO v. THE BOEING COMPANY (January 21, 2011)

Like most American companies, the Boeing Company and the International Paper Company offered their employees participation in defined-contribution benefit plans. Members in each of the plans brought suit against each company and the plans. The allegations in each of the suits were quite similar. They claimed that the plans breached their fiduciary duties by a) paying excessive fees and expenses, b) choosing to include imprudent investment options in the plans, and c) concealing information from plan participants. Chief Judge Herndon (S.D. Ill.) certified a class in each case under Rule 23(b)(1). Each class definition included all persons who are, were, or ever will be participants or beneficiaries of the plan. Boeing and IP sought review.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Wood, and Tinder granted the request for review, vacated each certification order, and remanded. The Court noted that the case was brought under § 502(a)(2) of ERISA, which allows a participant to bring a civil action for relief under § 409, which in turn makes a fiduciary personally liable for a breach of fiduciary duty. In 1985, the Supreme Court held, in Russell, that a fiduciary in a defined-benefit plan context was not personally liable to a participant for damages. In a defined-benefit plan, assets are held in trust and the plan is administered by a fiduciary. Obligating a fiduciary to restore funds to the plan is sufficient to make the plan whole. In 2008, the Supreme Court had an occasion to apply that principle to a defined-contribution plan in LaRue. LaRue alleged a breach by a fiduciary that affected his account only and sought restoration of that amount to his account. Relying principally on the differences between defined-benefit and defined-contribution plans, the Supreme Court held that § 502(a) does authorize recovery for breaches of fiduciary duty that impair only the assets in a particular participant's account. But LaRue was an individual claim. The consolidated appeals involve class claims. The Court had to distinguish between an individual injury and an injury that should be considered a plan injury -- only a complaint about the latter is appropriately treated as a class. The Court turned to Rule 23. In order to proceed as a class, a claim must meet all of the elements of Rule 23(a) and fit into one of the 23(b) categories. For class certification purposes, a district court should not take the facts as alleged but, rather, make any required factual determinations. If the court finds that the claims meet the Rule 23 requirements, it issues an order in which it certifies and defines the class. The class definition is a very important aspect of the order, affecting both the litigation's scope and its res judicata effect. With those principles in mind, the Court turned first to the Boeing case. Although the Court found that the class met the numerosity and commonality requirements of Rule 23(a), it concluded that it did not meet the typicality and adequacy of representation requirements. Given the breadth of the class definition and the specific objections to two of the several investment options included in the plan, it is possible that many plan participants never owned shares in the targeted funds. Because the plaintiffs could potentially correct the Rule 23(a) problems by redefining the class, the Court also addressed Rule 23(b). The Court mentioned the Supreme Court’s cautionary remarks in Ortiz regarding the use of mandatory (b)(1) classes. Again, using the class definition certified, the Court concluded that the class could not meet the (b)(1)(A) or (b)(1)(B) requirements. The class was simply too diverse to for the Court to conclude that the class members had an identity of interest or that there was a risk of incompatible standards of conduct. Turning to the IP class, the Court found some of the same problems. It addressed the theories of relief (misrepresentation, imprudent investment, and excessive fees) individually. Under the misrepresentation theory, the Court concluded that it was not clear that the class representative's claims were typical of those of the group. With respect to the imprudent investment theory, the Court concluded (like in the Boeing class) that the allegation that some funds were imprudent while others were not, in conjunction with the diversity of the class, made the claim inappropriate for class treatment. Finally, with respect to the excessive fee theory, it appears that some fees were plan specific while others were fund specific. Given the class members’ different decisions regarding specific fund investments, this theory is also not appropriate for class treatment. The Court again emphasized that its decision was based on the definition provided by the district court and that it was not holding that an appropriate class could not be defined.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

HOWELL v. MOTOROLA (January 21, 2011)

Motorola has a ERISA defined-contribution pension plan that it offers its employees. The Plan Administrator, called the Profit Sharing Committee, was appointed by the Board of Directors. The Committee selected the investments that the plan offered and monitored the plan. The participants in the plan had complete authority over their investment choices. Before 2000, the plan offered four investment options, one of which was a Motorola Stock Fund. After 2000, nine options were available, still including a Motorola Stock Fund. Motorola stock had done quite well in the 1990s, increasing in value tenfold. It was trading around $30 in May 2000. It was in May 2000 that Motorola filed an SEC report in which it reported a significant agreement with a Turkish company. The report failed to mention that Motorola had provided almost $2 billion in financing to the company. The Turkey project did not go well. By May 2001, Motorola stock was trading at about $15 a share. Bruce Howell, a former Motorola employee and plan member, filed suit in 2003. Stephen Lingis and others later intervened. The suit alleges three breaches of fiduciary duty: a) imprudence in offering the Motorola Stock Fund, b) misrepresentation or failure to disclose information about the Turkey project, and c) failure to appoint and monitor competent fiduciaries. The defendants included Motorola, the Profit Sharing Committee, and a number of individual defendants. Judge Pallmeyer (N.D. Ill.) certified a class, dismissed Howell's claims on the grounds that he signed an enforceable release, and granted summary judgment to the defendants. She concluded that no defendant breached an ERISA duty and that the defendants were entitled to the section 404(c) safe harbor. Howell and the plaintiff class appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Wood, and Tinder affirmed. The Court first addressed Howell's appeal. He had signed a General Release as part of a severance program in 2001. The release specifically included ERISA claims but excluded claims under the "employee benefits plan" and claims which could not be released by law. Howell claimed that the release was either not voluntary or fit within one of the exclusions. On the voluntariness point, the Court concluded that Howell failed to create an issue of fact. The Court addressed the "benefits plan" exclusion as a contract matter and concluded that the only rational reading of the clause was that Howell reserved the right to assert a claim for benefits already accrued but waived the right to challenge the plan as a whole. Finally, the Court rejected the argument that the release was an agreement that purported to relieve a fiduciary from responsibility prohibited under ERISA § 410(a). The release does not relieve any fiduciary of responsibility, it merely settles claims he might have. Turning to the merits of the class appeal, the Court identified three issues: a) which of the defendants were fiduciaries, b) whether there was a breach of a fiduciary duty, and c) whether the class was harmed. On the question of which defendants were fiduciaries, the Court addressed them in categories. With respect to Motorola and the Committee, as entities, the Court identified some thorny issues. Since it would later conclude that there was no breach, it assumed that both the company and the Committee fiduciaries. The Court then concluded that each of the individual defendants was an ERISA fiduciary, either as a Committee member, a Board member responsible for selecting Committee members, or as the Vice President of benefits. The Court thus turned to the evidence of a breach. It addressed each of the three theories of liability separately. On the theory that the fiduciaries were imprudent in even offering the Motorola Stock Fund, the Court found that the “safe harbor" did not apply. The safe harbor only protects a fiduciary from responsibility as a result of choices made by someone beyond his control. The choice of funds to offer, however, is exclusively within the fiduciary's control -- the safe harbor is unavailable. It found the class' evidence on the imprudence theory quite thin, however. The participants were always provided with other options, they were almost always allowed to move investment money out of the Motorola Stock Fund, and Motorola was a fundamentally sound company. It concluded that offering a Motorola Stock fund was not a breach. The class’ failure to disclose theory is that the fiduciaries breached a duty by failing to provide information on the Turkey project to the plan participants. The same failure to provide information, argued the class, defeats their safe harbor argument. In fact, the Court accepted the district court's approach that basically equated the two standards. The Court concluded, however, that the class presented insufficient evidence of an intentionally misleading statement or material omission. Therefore, the defendants did not violate a fiduciary duty and were entitled to the safe harbor. Finally, on the failure to monitor allegations, the Court found that the same safe harbor analysis it undertook with respect to disclosure theory applied. Even without safe harbor, there would be no liability as the Court thought the allegations were close to frivolous.

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

HYPERQUEST v. N'SITE SOLUTIONS (January 19, 2011)

Safelite Group owns the copyright for a claims processing software program. Its predecessor granted a non-exclusive license to N’Site Solutions in 2001 limited to in-facility use only. A dispute arose between the parties in late 2003 regarding agreement terms and fees. Attempts to renegotiate the agreement in early 2004 were unsuccessful. At about the same time, Safelite entered into a licensing agreement with HyperQuest. The HyperQuest agreement granted significantly greater rights than the N’Site agreement did. However, Safelite retained certain rights and the agreement recognized the then-ongoing renegotiation efforts with N’Site. HyperQuest filed a Copyright Act suit against N’Site and Unitrin Direct Insurance Company. It alleged that N’Site infringed its copyright by using the software outside of its own facilities, by modifying and creating derivative works, and by selling the software or derivative works to Unitrin. Judge Shadur (N.D. Ill.) dismissed the case with prejudice, concluding that HyperQuest lacked standing to sue. The court also awarded fees and costs to N’Site. HyperQuest appeals both the merits and the fee award -- Unitrin cross-appeals the reduction of its requested fees.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Flaum, Wood, and Evans affirmed. Under the Copyright Act, only a person with enforceable rights may bring an action. That person must be a "legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right." The Act lists six exclusive rights - the right to: a) reproduce the work, b) prepare derivative works, c) distribute copies, d) perform the work publicly, e) display the work, and, f) perform the work digitally. The Court noted that a copyright owner could convey various rights to different parties and that HyperQuest need only show its ownership of one of the exclusive rights. HyperQuest claims to own three of the six identified rights -- the rights to reproduce, prepare derivative works, and distribute copies. The Court turned to the language of the license agreements and the rights held by each of the parties to resolve the claim. It noted that N’Site had a limited right to use the software in its own facilities and no rights to reproduce, prepare derivative works, or distribute copies. But HyperQuest's license was not only subject to N’Site actual rights but was also subject to any rights that would have been granted to N’Site in the renegotiated license. In addition, Safelite itself retained substantial rights with respect to derivative works. The Court concluded that the lines of ownership were "blurry at best" and that HyperQuest failed to meet its burden of showing ownership of an exclusive right. Turning to the fee award, the Court first addressed a jurisdictional issue. The original judgment on the fee award ran in favor of Unitrin only. Two days later, the district court on its own motion amended the judgment to add N’Site. Unitrin's notice of appeal is timely only if the amended judgment started anew the period within which to appeal. The Court concluded that the change was not a clerical error correctable under Rule 60(a) but that it was akin to a new trial order under Rule 59(d) and that the notice of appeal was timely. The Court found no abuse of discretion in either the award of fees or the reduction in the amount requested.

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

ERVIN v. OS RESTAURANT SERVICES (JANUARY 18, 2011)

OS Restaurant Services operates an Outback Steakhouse in Calumet City, Illinois. It has both hourly and tipped employees. A number of its former employees brought suit, alleging that certain of its employment practices violated the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and theIllinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The plaintiffs sought to pursue their federal claims as an FLSA collective action and their state law claims as a Rule 23 class action. Judge Guzman (N.D. Ill.) refused to certify the class. He concluded that the plaintiffs failed to meet the superiority requirement because of a conflict between Rule 23's opt-out approach and the FLSA's opt in approach. The plaintiffs petitioned for an interlocutory appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Flaum, Wood, and Hamilton granted the petition and reversed and remanded. The only issue on appeal was whether the plaintiffs satisfied the Rule 23(b)(3) superiority requirement. Although Outback argued that the Court could affirm on the ground that individual issues predominated, the Court concluded that the district court's treatment of that issue was not clear enough to support alternate ground affirmance. On the superiority issue, the Court agreed that the two vehicles had different approaches. An FLSA collective action allows participation only upon the written consent of a party -- while a Rule 23(b)(3) class action includes all potential class members who do not affirmatively opt out of the class. Notwithstanding this distinction, however, the Court found nothing in the FLSA that precluded a companion class action on state law claims. Because the district court concluded that the two claims could not proceed simultaneously as a matter of law, the Court remanded for further consideration of the Rule 23 requirements.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

JONES v. CLARK (January 14, 2011)

Early one August morning, Christina Jones had begun her job reading meters for Commonwealth Edison. Jones is African-American. On this particular day, her job took her to Braidwood, Illinois. Braidwood, a small town about 50 miles southwest of Chicago, has an almost exclusively white population. Apparently, a "concerned citizen" thought that she was something other than a meter reader and called the police. [According to her complaint:] Officer Clark was the first to arrive and question her. Although she wore numerous articles of clothing with her employer's logo and provided two separate pieces of identification, Clark would not let her go. When he asked for her date of birth, she stepped away and started to call her supervisor on her cell phone. At that point, Officer Kaminski arrived. He screamed at her, knocked the phone out of her hand, cuffed her hands behind her back, threw her against the car, and arrested her. She was charged with obstructing a peace officer and released on bond. The charges were later terminated in her favor. Jones brought suit, alleging Fourth Amendment violations. Judge Andersen (N.D. Ill.) concluded that disputed issues of fact precluded resolution either of the merits or defendants' request for qualified immunity. Defendants appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Wood, Evans, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed its appellate jurisdiction. Although the "collateral orders" exception to the finality rule does apply to the appeal of qualified immunity denials, it does so only in so far as the appeal raises an issue of law. Even in a case, like this, where there are disputed issues of fact, defendants can (and these defendants have) get their appeal if they limit it to plaintiffs version of the facts. Comfortable with its jurisdiction, the Court turned to the merits. Qualified immunity has two prongs: was there a constitutional deprivation and were the constitutional rights at issue clearly established. With respect to the second prong, the constitutional right at issue here -- the right to be free from an arrest without probable cause -- was certainly clearly established. Therefore, the only question for the Court on the merits is whether Clark and Kaminski violated Jones' rights. The Court appeared to have little difficulty in answering that question affirmatively (again, on Jones' version of the facts). The Court noted that there was nothing in the record that would provide reasonable suspicion that she was engaged in unlawful activity. Their initial detention of her was therefore a constitutional deprivation. In addition, her actual arrest was a constitutional violation. Since the officers had no reason to detain her in the first place, anything supporting probable cause to arrest her must have occurred after her detention. Her post-detention conduct does not support probable cause either for disorderly conduct or for obstructing a peace officer. With respect to the former, she acted professionally at all times. With respect to the latter, the offense requires a physical act rather than just an argument with a policeman. The officers are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity on this record.

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

DETATA v. ROLLPRINT PACKAGING PRODUCTS (January 12, 2011)

Sherry DeTata had a rather short career at Rollprint Packaging Products. She was fired after only eight days -- allegedly a few days after she complained about sexual harassment. She sought advice from Jewell Bracko, the Director of the American Civil Rights Trust. Although Bracko wrote a letter to Rollprint on her behalf, his role and relationship with DeTata is not clear on the record. In any event, she filed a charge with the EEOC in December of 2008. The agency issued a right to sue letter on March 2, 2009. Although the letter was addressed to DeTata, it was sent to Bracko. DeTata alleges that Bracko never received it. It was returned to the EEOC as undeliverable. When DeTata later called the agency to inquire about her case, she was told that the letter had been issued but was also told that her file had been lost. The EEOC eventually resent the letter on June 18. Of course, the letter stated that she had 90 days after her receipt of the notice to file a lawsuit. She filed her suit pro se on August 18. Rollprint moved to dismiss on the grounds that she did not meet the 90-day requirement. Judge Pallmeyer (N.D. Ill) held an evidentiary hearing. Based on DeTata's testimony that her conversation with the EEOC occurred in April, the district court granted Rollprint's motion. It concluded that the 90-day period began running when she had actual oral notice. DeTata hired an attorney and filed an amended complaint, which was also dismissed. On a motion for reconsideration, she explained that she misspoke when she stated that the call was in April and that it was really in May. The court denied the motion. DeTata Appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Wood and Evans vacated and remanded. The statute requires the agency to notify a party when it dismisses a discrimination charge but it does not elaborate on either the form or content of that notice. The Court noted that it has consistently held that written notice is required and that the 90-day period does not run until actual receipt of the letter. It also noted, however, that cases from both the 6th and the 11th Circuits held that oral notice was sufficient. In both those cases, the court believed that the plaintiff was at least partially at fault for the delayed actual receipt, which is not the case here. But even if oral notice is sufficient, it must be sufficient notice. The Court held that proper notice must include authorization to institute an action within 90 days and advice regarding the institution of the action, if appropriate. The record does not establish that the oral notice received here met that threshold. Rollprint has the burden to show that the case was filed late -- it has not met that burden. The Court also rejected Rollprint's request to affirm the district court on the grounds that the initial notice sent to Bracko was sufficient. The Court noted that the undisputed facts surrounding that notice were insufficient for it to conclude at this stage that it constituted adequate notice.

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

THE SMART MARKETING GROUP v. PUBLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL (October 28, 2010)

For years, Publications International operated ConsumerGuide.com, a website that provides free automobile price quotes. In turn, Publications transformed the price quote request into sales leads that they then sold to wholesalers, who turned around and sold them to local automobile dealers. In 2003, Publications decided to revise its business model and sell those sales leads directly to dealers. It turned to The Smart Marketing Group for help. They developed two programs – “Approved” and “Leads & Listings.” In Approved, dealers were designated as "approved" dealerships and obtained certain marketing advantages. Leads & Listings involved the actual delivery of specific sales leads to a dealer every month. Smart and Publications entered into a contract in October of 2003. Although the venture failed miserably, each party (not surprisingly) had a different story. According to Publications, Smart botched the Approved program from the beginning – and its failure put pressure to launch Leads & Listings sooner than it was ready. On the other hand, Smart claim that Approved was a big success and the reason some dealers and did not like it was because of Publication's failure to deliver the promised advantages of the program. Even after the October contract, Publications still had not finished the software necessary to deliver the sales leads. Publications decided to terminate its relationship with Smart. It purported to rely on a "termination for cause" provision in the contract. Smart filed suit for breach of contract. The case eventually went to trial. Because of certain pre-trial rulings, the only significant issue at trial was Smart's damages. Smart asked for $8.8 million. Its expert testified about each of the hundreds of dealer contracts and, making certain assumptions and estimations, projected the amount of lost profit. Although the court rendered him unqualified to testify as an expert, it did allow him to explain his calculations. Publication's experts testified that Smart's expert used unreasonable assumptions and estimations. The jury awarded lost profits of $5.6 million. Publications moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 (b) and, alternatively, for a new trial under Rule 59. Judge Gottschall (N.D. Ill.) denied the motions. Publications appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Wood, Evans, and Sykes vacated and remanded. Under Illinois law, the Court said, a plaintiff has the burden of proof in showing lost profits to a reasonable degree of certainty. This can sometimes be difficult even for established businesses, but at least they can rely on past profit history. New businesses have an even more formidable task. The Court concluded that the venture at issue was a new business even though Publications and Smart both had prior related experience. Neither, however, had experience in the web-based sales promotion venture they were attempting to create. The Court reviewed Smart’s evidence. It found the it "sorely lacking," "just guesses," "at best predictions," and "unreliable." Nevertheless, it concluded that the district court did not err in denying the Rule 50 (b) motion -- it found it conceivable that the entire record could support some damages for Smart. It did, however, find the verdict excessive under Rule 59 and remanded for a new trial on damages. Given the weaknesses in Smart's evidence, the Court concluded that the amount of the verdict was outside any reasonable range of just compensation. 

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

JUDGE v. QUINN (September 24, 2010)

Barack Obama created a vacancy in the United States Senate when he resigned his seat in November of 2008. Apparently, he got a better job. Illinois’ governor appointed Roland Burris to serve the remaining years of his term. Two Illinois voters brought suit, alleging that Illinois violated the Seventeenth Amendment by failing to hold a popular election. In a June 16, 2010 opinion (opinion and intheiropinion), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction. The Court held that the plaintiffs had shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits (that the Seventeenth Amendment requires an election to fill any Senate vacancy) but had failed to show irreparable harm, since there was still adequate time to hold the election. The district court then held a series of hearings, during which Illinois ultimately agreed to hold the election (after the Court denied a rehearing and rehearing en banc). The State put forth a proposal, agreed to by the plaintiffs, under which the special election would be held the same day as the already-scheduled general election for the same seat -- and the candidates on the special election ballot would be those same candidates as on the general election ballot. Senator Burris, whose name will not be on the general election ballot, objected. He wanted his name included on the special election ballot, either by collecting some designated number of signatures or simply by agreement. Judge Grady (N.D. Ill.) adopted the State's proposal. The governor issued a writ of election and the court issued its preliminary injunction. Senator Burris appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Wood, and Tinder affirmed. The Court first turned to Burris' argument that the case presented a nonjusticiable political question. Only two of the Baker factors were relevant, said the Court, and it resolved both against Burris. First, there was not a "lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards." The Seventeenth Amendment, state law, and past Illinois history provided the rules and standards. Second, the question is not within the exclusive province of the political branch. When constitutional rights are infringed by the inaction of a state, a federal court has the power to hear the case and fashion a remedy. The Court next addressed Burris' argument that the court interfered with the role of the Illinois General Assembly when it decided whose names would appear on the special election ballot. The Court held that Burris waived this argument by not raising it below -- but also concluded that, although the states have principal responsibility for controlling the procedural aspects of these elections, a district court has the power to fashion a remedy for a constitutional violation. Finally, the Court rejected the notion that the district court order was an unconstitutional ballot access restriction. There is nothing in the order that excludes a particular class of candidates and the order is narrowly tailored to affect only one election.

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

MCEVOY v. IEI BARGE SERVICES (September 7, 2010)

IEI Barge Services (Services) is a bulk material handler with a facility on the banks of the Mississippi River in East Dubuque, Illinois. Among other materials, Services handles coal, receiving it from train cars and loading it onto river barges. Several of Services' neighbors, including Charles McEvoy, complained that the coal-handling activity releases coal dust which, in turn, is blown onto their properties. McEvoy filed suit in early 2006 under the citizen-suit provisions of the Clean Air Act. Other neighbors filed similar suits in early 2007. The theory of recovery in both suits is that Services' violation of two Illinois environmental regulations provided plaintiffs with a remedy under the Act. Judge Kapala (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to Services in both cases. The plaintiffs appealed -- the appeals were consolidated.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Wood affirmed. The Court turned its attention to the Act. The citizen-suit provision of the Act permits a private action against a person who is alleged to have violated "an emission standard or limitation under this chapter." Under the definition of that phrase, the enforceable standards and limitations are (as is relevant to the appeal): a) an "emission limitation, standard of performance or emission standard," and b) "any other standard, limitation, or schedule established under any permit issued pursuant to [another section of the Act] or under any applicable State implementation plan." In order to be enforceable under the Act, therefore, the Illinois regulations at issue must qualify under one of those two definitions. Before proceeding to an application of the Act to the regulations, the Court expressed its disagreement with the district court's interpretation of the second prong. The district court found that the phrase was ambiguous and concluded that the better reading was that it allowed enforcement only of a standard contained in a permit -- as opposed to a standard contained in a permit or a State implementation plan. The Court found that the statute was not ambiguous and that the natural reading allowed for enforcement of a standard contained in a permit or a State implementation plan. The first regulation the plaintiffs seek to enforce is entitled "Prohibition of Air Pollution" and, in the Court's words, says little more than "thou shall not pollute." The Court concluded that this "broad, hortatory statement" does not qualify as a standard or limitation enforceable under the Act. The second regulation, the "Fugitive Particulate Matter" regulation, presented a closer question. The regulation contained more specifics than the general prohibition, but fell far short of other highly specific standards contained in Illinois' regulations. The Court referred to some of the undefined words in the regulation: "visible," "an observer," "looking generally," "at a point beyond," etc. The Court noted that other Illinois regulations contain more specific metrics subject to objective measurement. The Fugitive Particulate Matter regulation does not. Finding no additional guidance or definitions to guide its interpretation, he Court concluded that the regulation could not be enforced through the Act.

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

RUNYON v. APPLIED EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES (August 30, 2010)

Timothy Runyon began working at Applied Extrusion Technologies' (AET) Terre Haute, Indiana plant in 2005 at the age of 45. A few months later, the company hired Troy Corbett, about fifteen years his junior. The two men worked for the same supervisor and had the same job title. Runyon had two fairly serious and heated altercations with coworkers in his first seven months on the job. Then, in February of 2006, Runyon and Corbett got into a heated argument that escalated into a fight. Both men were suspended for three days and instructed to write letters of apology. Runyon's letter focused more on his desire to remain employed and did not address the fight or issue an apology until its fourth and final paragraph. Corbett's letter, on the other hand, opened with an apology and expressed his sincere regret. Because of the earlier two incidents and the content of the letter, AET fired Runyon. It did not fire Corbett. Runyon brought an action against the company based on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). Judge McKinney (S.D. Ind.) granted judgment as a matter of law to AET at the close of Runyon's case-in-chief. Runyon appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Flaum, and Wood affirmed. The Court stated that Runyon was wrong in approaching the appeal as if it were a McDonnell Douglas indirect proof analysis. That burden-shifting approach is only appropriate at summary judgment, not after a plaintiff has had an opportunity to present his entire case at trial. The question at that time is whether he presented enough evidence to allow a rational factfinder to rule in his favor. On that question, Runyon must fail. He presented insufficient evidence to carry his burden that his age rather than his behavior was the real reason for his discharge.

• 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

LARSON v. ASTRUE (August 3, 2010)

Lynn Larson has been suffering from anxiety and depression for years. Her already fragile condition worsened in early 2004 when she was raped and suffered several additional physical injuries. Her psychiatrist continued to describe and adjust dosages of several medications throughout this time. Larson applied for Social Security benefits in June of 2004. Her troubles continued -- she was drinking, she had a "nervous breakdown," the nephew she had been raising was taken from her home, and she was arrested for driving under the influence. Her application for benefits was denied in 2004, and again on reconsideration in 2005. Her psychiatrist submitted a new questionnaire with a diagnosis of "severe, recurrent depression." A hearing was held before an ALJ in 2007. Larson testified about her employment history -- that she quit her part-time job at a gas station because she had to hide in the bathroom, she was fired from her bus driver job after a breakdown, and that she worked two hours a week at a restaurant owned by a friend. A psychologist testified that Larson met the "A criteria" but not the "B criteria." Her psychiatrist testified that Larson met all criteria. The ALJ denied the claim. Larson appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Wood, and Hamilton reversed and remanded. The Court first addressed the ALJ's consideration of the treating psychiatrist's opinion. That opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported and an ALJ must give a good reason for not giving it such weight. The Court found that the ALJ ignored and mischaracterized certain evidence in rejecting the psychiatrist's opinion. The psychiatrist had treated Larson for several years and his opinion was consistent with the other evidence in the record. The Court concluded that the ALJ would have found Larson disabled at Step 3 had he given the psychiatrist's opinion appropriate weight. The Court found support for its conclusion in the ALJ's treatment of Larson's testimony itself. The ALJ’s adverse credibility ruling was patently wrong and could not stand.

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

MOSS v. MARTIN (August 2, 2010)

William Moss was hired as the Chief of the Illinois Department of Transportation's (IDOT) Springfield, Illinois Highway Sign Shop in 2000. He was responsible for taking care of the signs on Illinois' highways. Moss was also a Republican. In 2003, a Democratic governor was elected in Illinois for the first time in a long time. Shortly thereafter, IDOT personnel manager Jacob Miller, who knew that Moss was a Republican, discovered that he was non-exempt. Non-exempt employees are those that are not protected from employment decisions based on their political affiliation. Miller started the process for firing Moss. Before any action was taken, Scott Doubet replaced Miller. Independently of anything Miller had decided or started, Doubet fired Moss in order to provide a job to Joe Athey, who was loyal to the new governor. Moss brought suit under § 1983, alleging that his First Amendment and due process rights were violated. Judge Scott (C.D. Ill.) dismissed the claims. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reinstated the First Amendment claim. The district court then granted summary judgment to the defendants on qualified immunity grounds. Moss appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Wood, and Hamilton affirmed. The district court only addressed the second prong of the qualified immunity test, whether Moss’ constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the defendants' conduct. The Court nevertheless briefly visited the first prong of the test, whether Moss' First Amendment rights were even violated. The Court noted that a fact finder could find that the firing was politically motivated, particularly against some of the defendants. It also found that Moss had a "promising" argument that his classification as non-exempt was wrong. Non-exempt positions are reserved for individuals with policymaking responsibilities or those who handle confidential information. The Court did not believe that the Chief of the Highway Sign Shop met that definition. Thus, the Court moved to the issue addressed by the district court -- whether it was "clearly established" that defendants' actions would violate the First Amendment. Although not dispositive, the Court agreed with the district court that Illinois' designation of the position as non-exempt favored a qualified immunity finding. The Court also relied on the fact that the job was designated exempt before Moss took the position. Finally, the Court found it particularly telling that Moss was unable to point to a closely analogous case despite a large number of political patronage case. The Court therefore concluded that qualified immunity was appropriate.

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

IN RE: MEYERS (August 2, 2010)

Andrea Meyers filed a Chapter 7 petition for bankruptcy relief on September 25, 2007. Months later, she received federal and state tax refunds for the 2007 tax year totaling $3,538. The bankruptcy Trustee moved for the turnover of the pre-petition share of the refunds. Since September 25 was 73.42% into the year as a whole, the Trustee asked for 73.42% of the refunds (or $2597.60). After a reduction related to Illinois' wild-card exemption, the Trustee sought $973.60. Meyers objected. The bankruptcy court sided with the Trustee and the district court affirmed. Meyers appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Flaum and Wood and District Judge St. Eve affirmed. Allocation of assets and liabilities is generally fairly simple in a bankruptcy context. Pre-petition assets satisfy pre-petition debts. Post-petition assets are generally not at risk and post-petition liabilities are not discharged. Tax refunds, however, do not fit neatly into this generalization. Courts have long recognized that tax refunds can be pre-petition assets. The sometimes difficult question can be how to allocate a single tax refund into pre-and post-petition shares. The Court recognized that reasonable people can identify any number of methods to do so. Here, the Trustee proposed the pro-rata approach -- 73.42% of the year had passed when Meyers filed her petition so 73.42% of the refund belongs to the bankruptcy estate. Meyers, on the other hand, proposed a formula under which the Trustee received a portion of the refund but only to the extent that the taxes withheld before the petition was filed exceeded the entire year's tax liability (a formula that was adopted by a bankruptcy court in Texas in 2006). In order to select from the competing proposals, the Court turned its attention to the Trustee's burden. It adopted the approach that had been used under the old Bankruptcy Act. The Trustee first has the burden of a prima facie case. Assuming a prima facie case, the debtor has the opportunity to challenge that case. The ultimate burden of persuasion rests with the Trustee. Applying that approach to the facts of the case, the Court concluded that the Trustee had made its prima facie showing. It identified the refund, the established that Meyer's income and withholding grew relatively steadily throughout the year without any spikes, and properly calculated the estate's pro-rata share. Turning to Meyer's challenge, the Court found it wanting. She offered no evidence that suggested a pro-rata approach was unreasonable. All she did was propose an approach that had been used once before -- and used in a case where the debtors' income and withholding did not grow steadily throughout the year. The Court conceded that the pro-rata approach might not be appropriate in every case, but concluded that it was reasonable in Meyer’s case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

JANIGA v. QUESTAR CAPITAL CORP. (August 2, 2010)

Alfred Janiga has lived and worked in the United States for over 20 years since his arrival from Poland. However, he still understands very little English. His brother, Weislaw Hessek, operates Hessek Financial Services and is a registered representative of Questar Capital Corp. After much prodding from Hessek, Janiga agreed to open a Questar account. He signed one piece of paper and claims that he never saw any of the documents related to his account. Just above his signature, however, in large letters, was a reference to an arbitration agreement in the contract and an admission that he had received a copy. Janiga was originally content with his investment. In fact, he increased his investment after a few months. After about a year, Janiga filed a complaint against his brother and Questar. His complaint included counts of securities violations, negligence, fraud, and others. The defendants moved to stay the proceedings and order arbitration. Judge Shadur (N.D. Ill.) denied the motions without prejudice until he determined whether a contract had even been formed. The defendants appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Wood, Evans, and Sykes reversed and remanded. The Court first commented on its appellate jurisdiction. Although the decision of the district court was not a final decision, the Federal Arbitration Act allows for an interlocutory appeal of the district court's refusal to stay and order arbitration. The Court turned to the merits -- whether the threshold question of the existence of a contract is a question for the court or the arbitrator. The Supreme Court has distinguished between challenges to the validity of an arbitration agreement and challenges to the validity of a contract. A court decides the former; the arbitrator decides the latter. At the time of the district court’s opinion (and even oral argument), the Supreme Court had not decided which decided the contract formation issue. On June 24, 2010, in the Granite Rock Co. case, the Supreme Court held that a courts, not an arbitrator, should decide issues of contract formation. The district court was therefore correct in not referring that issue to arbitration. The Court did take issue with the lower court's hesitation to decide the issue. The district court focused on issues such as Janiga's language barriers, whether he understood or read or even saw the contract, and whether the contract was valid under state law. But these are enforceability issues, said the Court. The fundamental point is that Janiga signed the contract and both parties performed under it for a year. Janiga clearly intended to open a brokerage account and his admittedly voluntary signature is evidence of his assent to the agreement. Contract formation has been established -- other questions may remain for the arbitrator. The Court was less confident of the resolution of the formation issue with respect to Hessek. If Hessek is an agent of Questar and the claims asserted are within the scope of that agency, he may receive the benefit of the arbitration agreement. Since the district court never addressed that issue, the Court remanded for further consideration.

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

SWANSON v. CITIBANK (July 30, 2010)

Gloria Swanson, an African-American, brought suit against Citibank and its appraiser alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act and common law fraud. She alleged the following facts: She applied for a home equity loan at a local Citibank branch. She became suspicious that the bank was trying to discourage African-American applications when a bank representative told her she had to be accompanied by her husband (a joint owner of the property). She was also told that Citibank's loan standards were stricter than those of a competing bank which had already denied her a loan. Nevertheless, she returned the following day and completed the application process. Based in large part on Swanson's statement that the home was worth $270,000, Citibank conditionally approved a $50,000 loan. However, when an independent appraiser retained by Citibank appraised the home at only $170,000, Citibank rejected the application. Swanson later ordered her own appraisal, which came in at $240,000. Judge Zagel (N.D. Ill.) granted defendants' motions to dismiss. Swanson appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner (dissenting in part) and Wood affirmed in part and reversed in part. The dismissal gave the Court the opportunity to review the pleading standards in light of the recent Supreme Court decisions in Twombly, Erickson, and Iqbal. First, the Court noted that none of the decisions questioned the validity of Rule 8's requirement of a "short and plain statement of the claim." Nevertheless, Twombly and Iqbal referred to a "plausibility" requirement. The Court viewed that requirement as one in which a court asks if whether it could happen, not whether it did happen. Applying those principles to Swanson's allegations against Citibank, the Court concluded that her bare-bone allegations of the type of discrimination, the discriminator, and the setting of the discrimination were sufficient to state a Fair Housing Act claim. Her fraud claim, however, implicated the "state with peculiarity" requirement of Rule 9(b) and an actual damages pleading requirement. Since Swanson did not plead any damages, her fraud claim was properly dismissed. Applying the principles to Swanson's claims against the appraiser, the Court again concluded that her bare-bone allegations that the appraiser understated the value of her home because of her race stated a claim under the Fair Housing Act. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the fraud claims for the same reason as it did those against Citibank.

Judge Posner agreed with the majority's treatment of the fraud claims but dissented from their treatment of the housing discrimination claims. He believed that the complaint set out an "obvious alternative explanation" for the actions of both the bank and the appraiser. With respect to the bank, Judge Posner cited the economic downturn, the fact that Swanson had already been denied a loan by another bank, and the fact that the appraisal suggested any loan would be undersecured. With respect to the appraiser, he noted the inexact nature of the business and the fact that errors are frequently made. Iqbal teaches us that if there is an "obvious alternative" to the invidious discrimination alleged by the plaintiff, the discrimination alternative is not a plausible one.

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

LOUIS AND KAREN METRO FAMILY, LLC v. LAWRENCEBURG CONSERVANCY DISTRICT (July 29, 2010)

Louis and Karen Metro Family, LLC is a limited liability company owned by Louis and Karen Metro. The company owns a number of parcels of property in Ohio and Indiana. One such parcel sat on a bank of Tanners Creek and was home to a pizza parlor. Because Tanners Creek had a long history of flooding, the City of Lawrenceburg and the Lawrenceburg Conservancy District agreed to jointly build a floodwall along the creek. The District notified Metro Family of its intent to acquire the Tanner Creek property through eminent domain. It offered $417,000 -- the appraised fair market value. Metro Family refused the offer but eventually agreed on the sale of the property for $417,000 plus an irrevocable option to purchase 1.4 acres back for $269,490. The option was exercisable for 18 months after completion of the floodwall. Unfortunately, the floodwall was never built. The City withdrew from the project and the District could not complete it on its own. The District conveyed the Metro Family parcel to the City. The property was converted to highway use. Metro Family brought suit against the City and the District for breach of contract. Magistrate Judge Hussman (S.D. Ind.) concluded that there was a breach but that Metro Family was entitled to no monetary recovery. Instead, he ordered reformation of the contract and gave Metro Family 18 additional months within which to exercise the option. The City and the District appeal. Metro Family cross-appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Wood, and Evans vacated and remanded. The only issue on appeal was the remedy for the breach. In Indiana, reformation of the contract is available when there is a mutual mistake. The Court noted that the problem was not really a mutual mistake but a failure to allocate risk in the event the underlying project was canceled. Nevertheless, the Court believed that an Indiana court would use the mutual mistake concept -- that the parties shared a common assumption regarding a fact that was the essence of the agreement -- to find for Metro Family. Therefore, the Metro Family is entitled to the value of the option. The Court opined that the magistrate judge's reformation approach would have been appropriate if the option parcel was still undeveloped. Since exercising the option is no longer a viable alternative, however, the Court concluded that the next best approach was to compare the option price ($269,490) with the appraised value of the option parcel prior to the construction of the highway. Metro Family is entitled to the excess (if any) of the appraised value over the option price.

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

ROADWAY EXPRESS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (July 22, 2010)

When Peter Cefalu applied for a job as a truck driver with Roadway Express in 1999, he lied on his application. He stated that he left two prior jobs voluntarily. In fact, in both cases, he was fired for reckless driving. Roadway fired him a few years later, shortly after he supported a co-worker's grievance against Roadway. Cefalu filed an administrative complaint claiming that his dismissal violated the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. During the administrative proceedings, Roadway claimed that it fired Cefalu not because of his protected activity but because of its then recent discovery of his dishonesty on his application. Roadway refused, even when ordered, to disclose the source of its information. The administrative law judge sanctioned Roadway. The judge prohibited the introduction of any evidence learned from the undisclosed source. Without that evidence, Roadway could not rebut Cefalu's allegations. The ALJ found for Cefalu and ordered his reinstatement. The Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) affirmed. On appeal to the Seventh Circuit, the Court upheld the sanction at the merits stage but remanded to allow Roadway an opportunity to establish, for purposes of reinstatement, that it would have fired Cefalu absent the protected activity. On remand, the administrative law judge concluded that Roadway failed to meet its burden. The ARB affirmed. Roadway petitions for review.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Ripple, and Wood denied the petition. The Court first revisited its earlier conclusions and its distinction between the use of the sanction at the merits stage and the reinstatement stage. Although the statute seems to require reinstatement, the Court borrowed the Mt. Healthy "mixed motive" framework to avoid the “absurd” result of reinstating an unsafe driver. The framework would allow Roadway to meet its burden by showing that it would have fired Cefalu because of his driving history even in the absence of his protected activity. The exception the Court adopted was limited to a showing of a public safety concern. The Court rejected Roadway's attempts to meet its burden by showing that it would have fired Cefalu for his dishonesty, as opposed to his driving. On its review of the record, the Court found the evidence of Roadway's treatment of drivers with similar records ambiguous. There was evidence that Roadway fired several drivers who were involved in accidents -- there was evidence that Roadway retained several drivers who were involved in accidents. The Court had little difficulty, therefore, in finding that the administrative decision was supported by "substantial evidence" -- the applicable standard of review.

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

MCGOWAN v. HULICK (July 20, 2010)

Michael McGowan was incarcerated in an Illinois prison in 2006. He filed a pro se lawsuit pursuant to state law and § 1983 against a dentist and the prison's dental director alleging the following facts: In November of 2006, his tooth began to hurt. His pleas for assistance finally resulted in an appointment with a dentist in late January 2007. The dentist refused to provide a filling but agreed to extract the tooth. The procedure did not go well. McGowan was in severe pain, the tooth broke apart, and the dentist had to remove pieces of the tooth from his mouth with an ice pick. After the procedure, the pain increased, a mass of tissue developed, and he developed a sinus perforation. Other than pain relievers and temporary fixes, McGowan received no treatment until August, months after the extraction. The complaint alleges detailed facts regarding his requests for treatment and the delay occasioned at least in part by the prison dental director. Judge Herndon (S.D. Ill.) dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to the § 1915A screening. The court acknowledged the long delay in treatment but concluded that it did not amount to deliberate indifference. The court did not address the state law negligence claims. McGowan appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner and Wood vacated and remanded. The Court noted the "well-established" Eighth Amendment test -- that deliberate indifference to serious medical (or dental) needs can amount to a violation. Delay itself can equal deliberate indifference in circumstances where it made conditions worse. Here, the Court concluded that the allegations against the prison dental director were erroneously dismissed. It noted the very specific complaint allegations of significant delays before McGowan was able to see the dentist, the oral surgeon, and finally the specialist. At this screening stage of this proceeding, the Court concluded that the allegations were sufficient to proceed. The Court reviewed the allegations against the dentist quite differently. It saw that as a dispute over which procedure was used and the competence with which it was performed. Although the ice pick allegation gave the Court the most pause, it decided that the allegation was simply that some instrument that looked like an ice pick was used. Although possibly supporting a negligence or gross negligence conclusion, the Court concluded that the allegations cannot support a finding of deliberate indifference. With respect to the state law negligence claims, the Court reinstated the claim with respect to the dental director and instructed the district court to modify its dismissal of the dentist to be without prejudice.

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

GOLDEN v. HELEN SIGMAN & ASSOCIATES (July 2, 2010)

Bruce Golden and his wife were involved in a bitter and hostile divorce. The dispute centered principally on the division of their assets and the custody of their only child. Golden added a battlefield when he brought suit in federal court. The defendants included his child’s court appointed representative and his wife’s attorneys, close friend and neighbor, and two business associates. His claims were based on federal copyright law, RICO, and § 1983 as well as several state law theories. He accused the lawyers of defamation, the lawyers and business associates of copyright infringement, the representative of defamation and failing to maintain neutrality, and the neighbor of a false 911 report. Judge Gottschall (N.D. Ill.) stayed the copyright infringement claim pending completion of the state court divorce proceedings and dismissed all other claims -- the RICO claim for failure to plead sufficiently the predicate acts and pattern of racketeering activity, the § 1983 claim because the representative had not acted under color of state law and enjoyed absolute immunity, and the state law claims by choosing not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The lawyers, the representative, and the friend all sought sanctions under Rule 11. The district court concluded that some of the claims did violate Rule 11 and ordered Golden to pay the defendants' attorneys' fees for the offending claims. Golden settled with the attorneys and appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Wood, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first noted that the only merits decision challenged on appeal was the § 1983 claim against the representative. It identified a potentially thorny issue with respect to absolute immunity. Although a child representative is entitled to absolute immunity when carrying out its court appointed duties, it may not be when it functions in a role closer to that of the child's attorney. The complaint did allege acts relating to that role. The Court declined to resolve that issue, however, instead identifying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as a jurisdictional bar. Under that doctrine, a party may not seek redress in a lower federal court for an injury caused by a state court judgment. Here, the Court determined that the only injury Golden complained of arose directly from the state court custody orders. The Court therefore affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claim. With respect to sanctions, the Court first rejected Golden's argument that the Rule 11 motions were not timely -- both because he failed to raise it in the district court and because the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing them. On the fees themselves, the Court concluded that the district court was well within its discretion in identifying counts on which to impose a sanction and in its method of calculating the amount of the sanction. Finally, the Court declined to impose sanctions on Golden for the appeal. Although he raised several frivolous arguments, he did advance some positions that could not be dismissed summarily.

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

LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. BEZICH (June 25, 2010)

Peter Bezich is a Lincoln National Life Insurance Company policyholder. He has a variable life policy, under which he can allocate funds to either a General Account or a Separate Account. The General Account accumulates premium payments while the Separate Account is an investment account registered with the SEC. Each month, Lincoln National deducts cost-of-insurance charges from a policyholder's account proportionately to the amounts invested in each of the two accounts. Bezich brought a class action in Indiana state court, alleging that Lincoln National breached the terms of the policy in the way it calculated the cost-of-insurance charges. Lincoln National removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Judge Van Bokkelen (N.D. Ind.) remanded the case to state court, relying on the CAFA exception for cases that solely involve claims relating to rights and obligations created by any “security.” Lincoln National petitioned for leave to appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Posner, and Wood dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction. Although the Court was first obliged to look at its appellate jurisdiction, it noted that the language governing its appellate jurisdiction was identical to the language creating the removal exception relied on by the district court. The core question for both is whether the policy is a "security" as defined by the Securities Act of 1933. Although the Court conceded there was authority in different contexts supporting Lincoln National's desire to look at the two component parts of the policy (and find one a security and one not), the Court rejected the applicability of those cases. It cited its agreement with the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Herndon that treated a variable life policy as a "security" under the Securities Litigation Uniformed Standards Act of 1998. Here, the claims of the class concern a promise made by Lincoln National that applied whether a policyholder's funds were in the General or Separate Account. The policy treated as a whole meets the definition of "security" -- the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition.

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

MUSCARELLO v. OGLE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (June 24, 2010)

Ogle County, Illinois joined the "green" movement in 2003 by amending its zoning ordinances to allow for the construction of windmills. Baileyville Wind Farms received the first special use permit for 40 windmills in 2005. The county also adopted a plan to protect residential, but not non-residential, property owners in the event of any diminution of property value. Patricia Muscarello owns nonresidential property adjacent to the proposed windfarm and has opposed its siting from the beginning. Unsuccessful in her attempts to block the project locally, Muscarello brought suit. She brought constitutional claims (unlawful taking, due process, equal protection), common law claims (trespass, nuisance), and state law claims (declaratory judgment, administrative review, writ of certiorari, unlawful taking, due process, equal protection, injunctive relief). She named over forty defendants, including Ogle County and related entities and individuals, the parties to the administrative proceedings, and Baileyville and its corporate parents. Judge Kapala (N.D. Ill) dismissed all the federal and common law claims as either unripe or for failure to state a claim. He then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. He also denied a request by Baileyville to stay administrative proceedings regarding the expiration of the special use permit. Both parties appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Wood, and Williams affirmed. The Court first addressed the three federal constitutional claims. The takings claim alleged no physical taking but relied on the “regulatory taking” concept. Under that concept, the permit must render her land useless for her to prevail. That is not the case here. Alternatively, the Court noted that Muscarello’s takings claim fails also because she failed to exhaust available state remedies. The Court rejected her equal protection claim that addressed the differential treatment afforded to residential and nonresidential landowners. Not only was it also unripe because of her failure to exhaust, the Court concluded that it would meet the deferential "rational basis" test. With respect to the due process claim, the Court concluded that Muscarello had no protectable property interest in the lifting of restrictions on adjacent property. The Court next addressed the state common-law claims, for which Muscarello asserted diversity jurisdiction. The district court never resolved the jurisdictional question, dismissing instead on ripeness grounds. On appeal, the Court considered both issues. The Court applied its citizenship analysis and concluded that Muscarello established diversity jurisdiction. On the merits, however, the Court agreed with the district court that Illinois law requires an invasion for both a trespass and nuisance. Since the windmills have not yet been built, there is no invasion -- and no trespass or nuisance. Finally, the Court considered the several state claims for which Muscarello asserted supplemental jurisdiction. It found no abuse of discretion for the dismissal of those claims. However, since it had just established that diversity jurisdiction did exist, it questioned whether the district court should have kept these claims under diversity jurisdiction. Although a plaintiff has the burden of establishing the court’s jurisdiction, a district court should rarely dismiss when jurisdiction in fact exists but was improperly pleaded. Here, the plaintiff had been given several opportunities to properly plead jurisdiction -- and she failed to do so. The Court decided not to do it for her. Finally, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Baileyville’s requested stay.

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

MEDICAL ASSURANCE CO. v. HELLMAN (June 21, 2010)

Dr. Mark Weinberger was a wealthy Indiana physician. It seems, however, that only a portion of his wealth resulted from his legitimate medical practice. The rest of it came from defrauding insurance companies. In 2004, facing the prospect of civil and criminal litigation, Weinberger disappeared during a European vacation (read about his escapades on America's Most Wanted). Hundreds of malpractice claims were filed against him in the months following his disappearance. Those claims are working their way through Indiana's medical malpractice statutory procedures, although only four have proceeded to the actual lawsuit stage. Medical Assurance Company is Weinberger's malpractice insurance provider. It brought a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that Weinberger's disappearance breached his duty of cooperation and thus voided its duty to defend. Judge Sharp (N.D. Ind.) concluded that Medical had shown no actual prejudice and therefore stayed the proceedings. Medical appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Manion, and Wood vacated and remanded. The Court quickly resolved two jurisdictional issues. First, the Court upheld diversity jurisdiction notwithstanding Medical's "information and belief" allegation of the citizenship of the 300+ individual defendants (the state malpractice plaintiffs). Although such an allegation is generally insufficient standing alone, the additional factors -- that each defendant was a claimant within the Indiana malpractice system and that no defendant contradicted the allegation --satisfied the Court. With respect to its appellate jurisdiction, the Court concluded that the district court's order was appealable under Quackenbush as an abstention-based stay order. On the merits, the Court noted that the Declaratory Judgment Act is a procedural device that allows a judge to declare the rights of the parties under the applicable state or federal law. One legitimate reason to refrain from such a declaration is the existence of a parallel proceeding. The proper inquiry in such a case includes consideration of the identity of the parties, the similarity of the issues, the relief available to the plaintiff, and whether a declaration will clarify the obligations of the parties. Applying those principles, the Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by issuing its stay order. Under Indiana law, Medical must show actual prejudice to prevail on its breach of cooperation argument. Although the district court thought that Medical could not show actual prejudice without interfering with the malpractice actions, the Court concluded that Medical should at least be given the chance.

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

JUDGE v. QUINN (June 16, 2010)

For 125 years after the founding of our country, the two senators from each state were chosen by that state's legislature. The Seventeenth Amendment changed that. It provided for the direct election of senators by the people. The Seventeenth Amendment also changed the method by which a Senate vacancy was addressed. It provided that the State executive issue writs of election. It added that the state legislature "may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct." Barack Obama created such a vacancy when, after being elected President, he resigned his Senate seat on November 16, 2008. The governor of Illinois appointed Roland Burris as United States Senator from Illinois to serve out the almost 2 years remaining in Obama's term. Two Illinois registered voters brought suit pursuant to § 1983. They alleged that Illinois' failure to hold an election to fill the vacancy violates the Seventeenth Amendment. Judge Grady (N.D. Ill.) denied the preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Wood, and Tinder affirmed. The Court concluded that plaintiffs had standing. Their alleged injury was not a general grievance but a denial of their right to vote. The injury was traceable to the Governor's conduct and it could be redressed by a favorable decision. On the merits, the Court first addressed the likelihood of success prong of the preliminary injunction test. It looked to the language of the amendment: a) the principal clause obligated the state's executive to issue a writ of election in the event of a vacancy, b) the proviso clause preserved the executive's pre-amendment power to appoint a temporary replacement so as to maintain the state's representation in the Senate, and c) the Court concluded that the "as the legislature may direct" language in the proviso referred to the legislature's power to control the Senatorial election. Reading the clauses together, the Court held that the amendment requires the state to hold a popular election to fill a vacancy and requires the governor to issue a writ that includes a date for the election. The logistics of that election, however, are left to state law, including the legislature's power over the date of the election. Illinois has set the date for that election as the same date of the general election. The practical impact, therefore, is that the people of Illinois will elect a Senator to serve the remainder of Obama’s term (through January of 2011) and a successor to Obama in the same election. Given that it is plaintiffs' claim that the Governor has not issued that writ, the Court concluded that they had established a strong case of likelihood of success. Unfortunately for them, they had not shown any irreparable harm. Without a showing of irreparable harm, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the injunction.

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

ELUSTRA v. MINEO (February 9, 2010)

Three sisters and their friends were enjoying a night at Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant in the summer of 2007. A dispute arose over the girls' bill. The police were called and the girls were arrested on charges of disorderly conduct. The charges were dropped. The sisters brought an action against the restaurant, its owner, and the responding police officer. The girls' mother, Christine Lopez, appeared as next friend of the two minor girls. The magistrate held a settlement conference, attended by the plaintiffs, Lopez, their attorney, and the defendants' attorneys. Although the conference was off the record, the magistrate judge reported that the parties agreed to a $6000 settlement. The girls' father, a nonparty, argued with the girls' attorney and declared that he would find new representation. At that point, the family left, although their attorney remained. The Magistrate Judge entered a recommendation to the district court to dismiss the case with prejudice in accordance with the settlement agreement. At a hearing a short time later before the district court, the girls' attorney appeared again and advised the district court that the girls' recollection was that was no agreement. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice. Ten business days later, Lopez filed a handwritten pro se “Motion to vacate and Reinstate.” Newly retained counsel supplemented the motion nine days later. The district court did not recognize the pro se filing as a Rule 59(e) motion and treated counsel’s motion as a Rule 60(b) motion and denied it. The girls appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Wood and Sykes affirmed. The Court first considered its scope of review. If Lopez' handwritten motion is considered as a timely Rule 59(e) motion, then the time to appeal the underlying judgment did not begin to run until that motion was denied and the Court can consider the merits. If not, the Court can only review the denial of the motion to reconsider. The problem with the first motion is that it was brought pro se by Christine Lopez. Normally, next friends and other representative parties may not appear pro se. Although the Court determined that federal law controlled whether Lopez’ filing should be allowed, it found guidance within Illinois state law. The Court cited several Illinois cases where the court applied a flexible rule, particularly where the filing simply preserved a party's right to go forward, as opposed to a more general prosecution of a suit. The Court also emphasized that the purpose of the rule is to protect the rights of the represented party. The Court concluded that the circumstances of the case -- where the parties had counsel through judgment, where the parties retained counsel to litigate the Rule 59(e) and later proceedings, where the parties were only unrepresented for a short time, but where the next friend filed a pro se motion during that time to preserve their appellate rights -- warranted a recognition of the motion. The Court also concluded that the motion met the requirements of Rule 7(b)(1), notwithstanding its brevity. It was in writing, it stated the grounds for seeking the order, and it stated the relief sought. Having reached the merits, however, the Court rejected the girls' position. An oral settlement agreement is valid if there is an offer, acceptance, and meeting of the minds. Here, the only contemporaneous evidence is the magistrate judge’s statement on the record that the parties understood the consequences of their agreement and reached a settlement. That is enough to conclude that there was a meeting of the minds.

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

LAFARY v. ROGERS GROUP, INC. (January 12, 2010)

Angela LaFary was a field clerk for Rogers Group, Inc. (RGI), a producer of crushed stone. In 2003, she was performing primarily administrative duties but longed for a chance to get into sales. Michael DeMartin, her supervisor, indicated she was on a track to do so. Unfortunately, she got derailed in 2004. In February, she married a man who worked as an independent trucker for the same RGI office. She found out she was pregnant on March 15. On March 24, DeMartin proposed, in an e-mail, to transfer LaFary to another RGI office. He noted business needs as well as a concern about the possible conflict of interest presented by LaFary's marriage. He recommended a transfer based solely on the business needs, however. On April 1, RGI assigned LaFary's husband to work with a different RGI office. In the same month, they transferred LaFary to the same office. Although DeMartin knew she was pregnant when he transferred her, he asserts that he was unaware of her pregnancy at the time of his recommendation. The transfer resulted in a pay increase but may have negatively affected LaFary's opportunities for a sales position. LaFary suffered complications from her pregnancy. She was hospitalized for two weeks in June and never returned. In January of 2005, although LaFary indicated her desire to return, DeMartin informed her that, pursuant to RGI policy, she was terminated because she did not return when her leave expired. LaFary filed an EEOC complaint, alleging sex discrimination. She then brought suit under Title VII. The court granted summary judgment to RGI. LaFary appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Wood, and Sykes affirmed. On the claim related to her transfer, the Court noted that the district court found both that it was not an adverse employment action and that LaFary did not establish that DeMartin knew of her pregnancy at the time he proposed her transfer. Although finding the first conclusion a close question, the Court affirmed on the second. LaFary's declaration stated only that DeMartin knew of her pregnancy "shortly after" she became pregnant. It never stated precisely when he knew. In fact, she never presented any competent evidence that DeMartin knew of her pregnancy at the time he recommended her transfer. Thus, she cannot prevail on that claim. With respect to her termination claim, the Court concluded that LaFary never established that a similarly situated individual not in her class was treated more favorably. Having failed to do so, she cannot prevail on the termination claim either.

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

GILBERT v. ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION (January 11, 2010)

For almost 20 years, Robert Gilbert was a high school social studies teacher -- and a highly regarded one at that. Apparently, he performed better as a teacher than as a colleague or employee. The school district eventually fired for insubordination. Gilbert contested his discharge administratively. After the district presented its evidence at the hearing, the hearing officer granted Gilbert's request to find in his favor. On review, the state appellate court reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the termination. Gilbert, concerned that the order would not allow him to reconvene the hearing and present his evidence, sought reconsideration in the appellate court and review in the state Supreme Court. He was unsuccessful. Gilbert then attempted, on remand to the circuit court, to get the state to reconvene the hearing. Again, he was unsuccessful. Instead of appealing that order, Gilbert filed suit in federal court. He asserted a due process claim and sought an injunction to reconvene the hearing and a declaration that his due process rights had been violated. The court dismissed the request for injunctive relief under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, later (after a replacement of judge) dismissed the claim for declaratory relief for lack of standing, and denied several motions to amend. Gilbert appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner and Wood affirmed. The Court agreed that the claim for an injunction was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine prevents a lower federal court from reviewing the decisions of a state court. Here, the Court concluded that granting Gilbert his requested relief would reverse the effect of the state court decision. Even Gilbert's argument that the state appellate court's decision did not preclude a reconvening of his hearing was presented to and rejected by the state court. With respect to the declaratory count, Gilbert did not contest the soundness of the ruling. He only argued that the second judge violated law-of-the-case principles when he dismissed the declaratory count after the first judge chose not to. The Court first noted that the law-of-the-case doctrine has no applicability on appeal. At the district court level, it is a deferential principal discouraging a later judge from reconsidering a prior judge’s ruling. On appeal, however, the Court simply decides whether the ultimate result was correct. As an aside, the Court also noted that the law-of-the-case principal has less applicability when a jurisdictional issue is involved and when the first judge never directly addressed the issue, both of which are present here. Because Gilbert did not even challenge the correctness of the dismissal of the declaratory count, the Court did not address the merits.

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

MAJESKI v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO. (December 29, 2009)

Kirsten Majeski was a nurse consultant for Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. ("MetLife"). Her typical workday involved sitting at a desk, using a phone and computer. In 2006, she was diagnosed with cervical radiculitis, a compression in the upper spinal. MetLife originally approved short-term disability benefits. It later determined that Majeski was not entitled to benefits, concluding that her impairment did not prevent her from performing her job. Majeski appealed and submitted medical evidence from her doctor and physical therapist. The conclusion of the medical evidence was that she had difficulty sitting and using her hands -- and was thus unable to perform her job. MetLife had a physician review the records. He concluded that there were "minimal objective findings" to support the suggested limitations. MetLife rejected the appeal. Majeski brought suit under ERISA. The district court granted summary judgment to MetLife. Majeski appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Wood, Evans and Tinder vacated and remanded. The Court first rejected Majeski's argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Glenn required a heightened standard of review. The Court admitted that it was still undecided on how to weigh a Plan administrator's conflict of interest. In Marrs, the Court concluded that the circumstances of the case should determine the impact of the conflict. The Court also rejected Majeski's argument that the district court should have considered evidence outside of the administrative record. On the merits, however, the Court agreed with Majeski. The physician's report on which MetLife solely relies did not address key findings presented by Majeski's medical evidence. Although the report concludes that there were "minimal objective findings," the Court cited several objective findings contained in Majeski's material that MetLife physician failed to mention or rebut. The failure to address this significant medical evidence amounts to an absence of reasoning and lack of fair review. The Court declined to rule directly in Majeski's favor, concluding that the typical and proper course is to remand to the plan administrator.

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

FANNON v. GUIDANT CORP. (October 21, 2009)

Guidant Corporation is a worldwide manufacturer of medical devices, including pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators ("ICDs"). In the 1990s, Guidant released a new ICD model. Within a few years, it discovered a design flaw. Although it corrected the flaw in new production runs, it never recalled the flawed units nor did it advise doctors or the public of the flaw. In 2004 and 2005, Guidant and J&J were involved in merger negotiations. Guidant issued several press statements and filed several SEC forms without mentioning its potential liability arising from the flawed devices. After a young man died and the New York Times prepared to report on the flaws, Guidant disclosed the problems in a letter to physicians. Shortly thereafter, the FDA issued a national recall. Guidant's stock price fell and J&J reconsidered its merger intentions. Eventually, Boston Scientific agreed to buy Guidant. Guidant's share price fluctuated between $63 and $80 during this time period. A number of class-action suits were filed, beginning in 2005. Some were voluntarily dismissed -- a second set was consolidated in the district court. Almost a year after the first complaints were filed, plaintiffs in the consolidated cases filed a consolidated complaint. A few days later, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. Almost two years later, the court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to meet the stringent scienter pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The court also denied plaintiffs leave to amend and denied a rule 59(e) motion to set aside the judgment and allow for an amended complaint. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Wood affirmed. The Court first noted that the plaintiffs, in their appeal, do not challenge the district court's evaluation of the merits of the complaint. They only challenge the court's decisions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice and to not allow an amendment. The Court recognized the jurisprudence which advises that a better course in PSLRA cases is to dismiss without prejudice. The Court also recognized the specific factual backdrop of the case -- that numerous individual cases had been filed, that a consolidated complaint was filed a year later, that the consolidated complaint was amended and that the dismissal came two years after that. Given the amount of time and number of opportunities, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing with prejudice. With respect to the court's denial of the Rule 59(e) motion, the Court also concluded that it was not an abuse of discretion. The Court relied on the facts that plaintiffs made a strategic decision not to insert new evidence prior to the original ruling on the motion to dismiss and also that the court below was of the opinion that the amended complaint did not adequately address the deficiencies of the original complaint.

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

WALSH v. CHEZ (October 21, 2009)

Jason Walsh was diagnosed with autism early in his life. His parents took him to Dr. Michael Chez for treatment. Chez prescribed a daily dosage of 50 mg of prednisone. One side-effect of prednisone is its negative impact on the body's ability to fight infection. A short time after the beginning of his prednisone treatment, Jason developed pneumonia. Dr. Chez reduced the prednisone treatment from 50 mg per day to 50 mg twice a week. A few months later, Jason died. Jason's parents brought a medical malpractice case against Dr. Chez. The Walshes submitted expert reports supporting their theory that the abrupt dosage reduction was the cause of their son's death. The district court excluded the reports on the ground that they failed to articulate a standard of care. The court dismissed the case. The Walshes appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Flaum and Wood reversed and remanded. The Court focused on the Rule 26 duty to disclose information regarding an expert's testimony. The purpose of the rule is to allow an opposing party a reasonable opportunity to address the expert's opinion. Examining the reports of the two experts, the Court concluded that each expressed an opinion that the conduct of Dr. Chez was not consistent with the standard of care. Dr. Chez was on notice of the Walshes' theory of malpractice. The fact that there may have been numerous ways of properly weaning Jason from the prednisone does not affect the experts' opinions that Dr. Chez' approach fell below the standard of care.

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

AMERICAN RIVER TRANSPORTATION CO. v. RYAN (August 27, 2009)

Kerrie Vesolowski was a passenger on a motor boat when it collided with a barge. Vesolowski sued American River Transportation Co. to recover for injuries in state court. American filed an action in federal court pursuant to the Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act. The Act limits a shipowner's liability to the value of its ship if it can prove that the acts complained of occurred without its privity or knowledge. The Act also requires that any claims brought against the owner “cease” during the pendency of the proceedings. The district court ordered that Vesolowski’s proceedings be stayed. Vesolowski complied. After more than a year, American asked the court to find Vesolowski (and others) in contempt and to impose sanctions. The court granted the motion and required Vesolowski to dismiss her state court action. Vesolowski appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Ripple and Wood reversed and remanded. The Court first clarified its jurisdiction, noting that it has jurisdiction over an order modifying an injunction but lacks jurisdiction over an order interpreting an injunction. The Court concluded that the order modified the earlier injunction because it required that the case be dismissed, rather than merely stayed. Addressing the merits, the Court noted that the order had two possible bases: 1) the Act requires a dismissal rather than a stay, or 2) the Act requires only a stay and the dismissal is a sanction for Vesolowski's actions during the stay. The Court rejected the first basis. The use of the word "cease" in the Act and the Act's provision preserving Vesolowski's right to her state court remedy convinced the Court that the Act only requires a stay. The Court rejected the second basis as well, as it found no grounds for a sanction. The state case remained stayed. Vesolowski's only action was to add additional defendants and theories of liability. American never had to respond in state court. The Court expressed its opinion that the district court did not intend the dismissal order to be a sanction. If it did, however, it was an abuse of discretion.

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

GONZALEZ v. CITY OF ELGIN (August 20, 2009)

A number of former high school classmates attended a wedding. Afterward, they gathered at the home of one of them. They visited late into the night and early morning. As the group was about to break up, one of them (who had left earlier to go to a local restaurant) returned to tell the others that his wife and brother were being assaulted outside the restaurant. Several members of the group went to the restaurant. The fight was over and the attackers were gone – but the police had arrived. Here, the testimony in the record supports two versions of a story. Several members of the group described a situation in which a number of police officers were out of control. They testified to beatings, kicks, and pepper-sprays. The police, on the other hand, described an unruly mob, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. The police arrested several of the group. Most of the charges were dismissed. Six members of the group brought an action against the City and several police officers. They alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment, under § 1983, for unlawful arrest, excessive force, and failure to intervene. They also alleged state law malicious prosecution and a respondeat superior claim against the City. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants and added that the defendants were also entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Flaum and Wood reversed and remanded. On the unlawful arrest claim, the Court noted that the plaintiffs had to show an arrest without probable cause. The Court reviewed the evidence in support of probable cause for the arrests for mob action, resisting arrest and battery. In each case, the Court concluded that the facts were contested. The plaintiffs’ version supported a conclusion that probable cause did not exist. On the excessive force claims, the Court again criticized the lower court for not viewing the facts in a light most favorable to plaintiffs. A reasonable jury could find that the police used greater force than necessary considering the totality of circumstances. For the same reason, the failure to intervene judgment was reversed. Next, the Court had little difficulty in rejecting the qualified immunity argument. The plaintiffs stated constitutional violations of an arrest without probable cause and the use of excessive force. Both constitutional rights are clearly established. Finally, the Court reversed with respect to the state law claims for much the same reason – there were genuine issues of material fact.

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

BROOKS v. ROSS (August 20, 2009)

Victor Brooks served on the Illinois Prison Review Board ("PRB"). One of the functions of the PRB is to make certain parole decisions. In 2002, the parole request of inmate Harry Aleman came before the PRB. The hearing was unusual both because of Aleman's notoriety for murder and bribery and because a Department of Corrections employee provided a statement in support of his parole. Brooks cast the only vote in support of parole. Because of the high profile of the situation, the department began an investigation. The investigation resulted in several reports, some of which accused Brooks of accepting bribes to vote in favor of parole. Eventually, Brooks and the department employee were indicted for their conduct -- and later acquitted. Brooks filed suit under § 1983 and state law against numerous state officials, alleging claims of deprivation of due process, malicious prosecution, conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. Brooks appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Wood and Tinder affirmed. The Court chose to address the claims under principles of timeliness, sovereign immunity and pleading requirements. First, a § 1983 claim borrows its statute of limitations from a state personal injury action. Here, that limitation is two years. Brooks' complaint was filed within two years of his acquittal, but more than two years after his indictment. The malicious prosecution and federal due process claims both require an allegation of acquittal and are therefore timely. The federal and state conspiracy claims and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim complain of his prosecution. An acquittal is not a pleading element of any of them. Under Illinois law, the Court concluded that the indictment was a single overt act that triggered the statute of limitations for those claims. They are therefore time-barred. Second, Illinois law requires tort suits against the state to be brought in the Illinois Court of Claims. Although the Court recognized the exception if a state actor exceeds his authority, it concluded that the malicious prosecution claim did not fall within the exception and was therefore barred. Finally, the Court concluded that Brooks' due process claim did not meet the pleading requirements of the Supreme Court's recent opinions in Twombly, Erickson and Iqbal. Under those cases, a plaintiff is required to provide notice of his claim, a court must accept allegations as true unless they fail to provide sufficient notice, and the court need not accept conclusory or abstract allegations. Here, Brooks does provide many specific allegations, but the allegations describe conduct that is just as consistent with legal behavior as it is with illegal behavior. The only allegations that adequately describe illegal behavior merely recite the elements of the cause of action and do not put the defendants on notice of their specific conduct that is alleged to have violated the Constitution or law.

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

DEAR v. SHINSEKI (August 20, 2009)

Deborah Dear, an African-American woman, had impressive educational and employment credentials when she was hired by a Veterans Affairs hospital in 2004. She continued to do well and received positive evaluations for a few years. In 2006, however, her supervisor discovered that the morale in her department was very low and staff members were complaining about Dear’s supervision. The supervisor also witnessed Dear engage in inappropriate discipline. Another supervisor asked Dear to develop and submit a plan for improving the situation. Dear did develop and submit a plan -- but it was late and failed to address many of the issues. Dear was temporarily reassigned to a non-supervisory position with a decrease in salary. She was replaced by a white woman. Dear filed an EEO complaint alleging race discrimination. Several days later, she was permanently reassigned to a staff nurse position. Dear filed a lawsuit pursuant to Title VII, alleging race discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant. Dear appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Ripple and Wood affirmed. The Court addressed Dear’s discrimination claim under the indirect method of proof. The parties did not dispute that Dear was in a protected class and that her reassignment was an adverse employment action. The Court addressed the other two elements: whether she was meeting her employer's legitimate expectations and whether she identified a similarly situated employee who was treated more favorably. The Court concluded that she met neither element. With respect to meeting expectations, Dear relied on her impressive education and employment history. While those may be relevant, the Court emphasized that it must look to her performance at the time of the adverse employment action. The record contained several instances of her failure to meet expectations at the time of her reassignment. Dear also failed to meet her burden of identifying a similarly situated employee who was treated differently. The same two shortcomings prevent her from avoiding summary judgment on her retaliation claim. Finally, with respect to her hostile work environment claim, the Court noted that there was little support in the record for her contention that the environment was hostile to African-Americans.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

HABER v. BIOMET, INC. (August 20, 2009)

Biomet produces artificial joints. It contracted with Paul Haber to be its distributor in parts of Florida. Their relationship was governed by two contracts -- one made in 1995 and one made in 1999. The 1995 contract contained a forum selection clause favoring an Indiana court. The 1999 contract contained a clause requiring arbitration in Chicago. Biomet came to believe that Haber was in breach of the contracts and brought an action in Indiana state court. In response, Haber filed a complaint in the local federal court to compel arbitration. The federal court dismissed the complaint, concluding that venue for such an action was proper only in Chicago, the selected forum of the arbitration. Haber also moved to compel arbitration in the state court action. The state court compelled arbitration only on claims that arose under the 1999 agreement and ordered Biomet to identify which of its claims arose under that agreement. Haber did not appeal the state court decision -- Haber did appeal the federal court decision.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Kanne and Wood affirmed. Before addressing the venue issue, the Court addressed res judicata. The Indiana court, although not resolving all matters, concluded that claims under the 1995 agreement were not arbitrable. The Court had to decide whether that ruling was of sufficient finality to be afforded res judicata effect. Indiana requires finality for issue preclusion. The factors a court should look at are whether: the parties were fully heard, the decision was rendered in a reasoned opinion, the order was appealable, and the order was appealed. The Court concluded that the state court’s order was final. The issue was before the court, was decided in a reasoned opinion and was appealable (though not appealed). Having found finality, the Court easily concluded that the order met the next four elements barring relitigation: a court of competent jurisdiction, an issue actually determined, identical parties, and a decision on the merits. The state court ruling was entitled to preclusive effect. The Court also briefly addressed the venue issue. Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires that, if an arbitration clause selects a forum for arbitration, a motion to compel the arbitration must be brought in a court in the forum selected. The venue decision was thus proper.

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

HANES v. ZURICK (August 18, 2009)

Apparently, Stephen Hanes and his neighbors in Grayslake, Illinois have been unable to get along for quite some time. The feud has resulted in numerous complaints to the local police. According to Hanes' complaint that the Grayslake police officers denied him equal protection of the law, the police always blame Hanes and arrest him. He has been arrested at least eight times – and every charge was dropped. The officers moved to dismiss the complaint both for failure to state a claim and on qualified immunity grounds. The district court denied the officers' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, although it did not specifically mention qualified immunity. The officers appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Wood and Williams affirmed. Because a ruling on the qualified immunity defense was a necessary basis for the Court's jurisdiction of the interlocutory appeal and because the district court did not specifically mention qualified immunity, the Court first addressed its jurisdiction. The qualified immunity issue was fully briefed below, the district court addressed both prongs of the qualified immunity inquiry, and the district court gave no indication that it intended not to rule on any issue presented. The Court was therefore satisfied that it had jurisdiction to consider the order rejecting a qualified immunity defense. On the merits, the Court first considered the constitutional violation prong. The Court started with its opinion in Hilton, which recognized a class-of-one equal protection claim for unequal police treatment. The Hilton plaintiffs did not survive summary judgment because they failed to show that the unequal treatment was the result of personal animus. Personal animus is alleged here. Although the Court concluded that a constitutional violation existed under Hilton, it did consider the officers' argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Engquist should prompt it to reconsider Hilton. In Engquist, the Supreme Court held that the class-of-one theory is not well-suited to the public employment context where government actors exercise "discretionary authority based on subjective, individualized determinations." The Court rejected the invitation to reconsider Hilton. It noted that although police officers enjoy broad discretion in their actions, their discretion is much more limited than that of a public employer. On the issue of whether the constitutional right was clearly established, the Court concluded that the officers were on notice as a result of Hilton.

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

SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP. v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO. (August 18, 2009)

Sandra Rudzinski was an active employee of Sharp Electronics when she began experiencing fatigue and headaches. As a Sharp employee, she participated in its disability plan. Under the plan, Sharp paid short-term benefits during an initial 180-day period and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife") paid long-term benefits. Sharp paid premiums to MetLife on behalf of its employees. Rudzinski received short-term benefits from Sharp and applied for long-term benefits from MetLife. MetLife denied her application, first on the ground that she had a pre-existing disability and later on the ground that she had not completed the 180 days of short-term benefits. Rudzinski sued MetLife under ERISA. During the litigation, MetLife told Rudzinski that MetLife also denied her benefits because Sharp stopped remitting premium payments after her employment ended. She added Sharp as a defendant. She accused Sharp of interfering with her benefits, violating fiduciary duties, and for telling her that she could maintain her benefits by obtaining a conversion policy. Sharp cross-claimed against MetLife, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, equitable estoppel and indemnity. Rudzinski voluntarily dismissed her claim against Sharp and the court entered judgment in her favor in her claim against MetLife, leaving only Sharp's cross-claim. Sharp filed an amended complaint, alleging breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, indemnification, negligence, negligent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, abuse of process and common-law breach of fiduciary duty. The court granted MetLife's motion to dismiss, concluding that MetLife had not breached a fiduciary duty and that the state law claims were preempted by ERISA. Sharp appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Rovner and Wood affirmed with respect to ERISA and vacated and dismissed with respect to the state law claims. In order to recover under its ERISA claim, Sharp had to prove that MetLife owed it a fiduciary duty, that it was involved in fiduciary functions when it told Rudzinski about Sharp's failure to pay premiums, and that it was seeking damages for losses suffered by the plan (as opposed to the company). Although the Court agreed that Sharp and MetLife both occupied fiduciary roles, it concluded that MetLife did not owe a fiduciary duty to Sharp. It also concluded that Sharp's only losses were its fees and expenses in defending the suit brought by Rudzinski, losses not recoverable under ERISA. With respect to the state law claims, the Court disagreed with the district court that they were preempted by ERISA. ERISA does not preempt state law claims that are not related to a benefit plan. Here, Sharp's claims relate to its contractual relationship with MetLife. Even though the subject of that relationship is a benefit plan, claims relating to the contract are not preempted. The Court nevertheless dismissed the state law claims based on the lower court's alternative ruling that it would not exercise its discretion to hear the state law claims, considering that the only federal claim was dismissed. 

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

JUSTICE v. TOWN OF CICERO (August 14, 2009)

On the basis of an affidavit of a local building inspector asserting that John Justice was operating a business without a license and was likely illegally storing chemicals, a state judge issued a search warrant. During the search, the police discovered several unregistered guns. The town seized the guns and ticketed Justice for their possession. Justice responded with a lawsuit against the town and several individuals. Justice alleged a lack of probable cause for the search and challenged both the business license and firearm ordinance. He also asserted various antitrust claims arising out of the town's water supply charges. The district court dismissed the entire complaint for a failure to state a claim. Justice appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Wood and Tinder affirmed. The Court took each of Justice's allegations in turn. With respect to his challenge of the business license ordinance, the Court noted that the town was a home-rule unit with the power to regulate and license. The Court agreed with the district court that the ordinance was a proper application of that power. The Court next rejected Justice's challenge to the search. The search was conducted pursuant to a properly issued warrant. With respect to the firearm ordinance, the Court noted the Supreme Court's recent decision in Heller, which struck down a District of Columbia handgun prohibition, and the Court's even more recent decision in City of Chicago, which concluded that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states. Justice has no case either because City of Chicago was decided correctly and the Second Amendment does not apply to the town, or, even if the Second Amendment does apply, the ordinance is consistent with Heller in that it only regulates – and does not prohibit - gun possession. Finally, the Court summarily affirmed the district court with respect to Justice's various claims with respect to the town's water supply practices. Water supply is a traditional government activity authorized by state law. The town is immune from both federal and state antitrust liability for its water supply activities.

 

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

SCHOR v. CITY OF CHICAGO (August 13, 2009)

The City of Chicago passed an ordinance that prohibits the use of a mobile phone while driving unless it is used in conjunction with a "hands-free" device. Three individuals who were ticketed for violating the ordinance filed an action against the City, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and Illinois law. The district court dismissed the claims and refused to allow an amendment to the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner and Wood affirmed. The Court rejected the Fourth Amendment claim. The officers making the stops observed each plaintiff violating the ordinance. Those observations provided probable cause for the stop – and thus no Fourth Amendment violation. The Equal Protection Clause claim was a "class of the one" claim. To succeed on that claim, the Court stated, the plaintiffs had to show that they were treated differently and that there was no rational basis for the difference in treatment. Here, the drivers were treated differently than other drivers who were not using mobile phones. The basis for the differential treatment, however, was the violation of an ordinance -- clearly a rational distinction. The Court rejected the plaintiffs' Monell claims as well. A direct claim against a municipality must be based on an underlying constitutional violation, which is not present here. Finally, the Court concluded that the district court's refusal to allow an amendment to the complaint was not an abuse of discretion. In the amendment, the plaintiffs sought to include a claims that the ordinance violated their fundamental right to travel and a claim that the ordinance was void for vagueness. The plaintiffs failed to indicate how the ordinance infringed any right to travel or how its terms were so vague that an ordinary person could not understand.

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

WELLPOINT, INC. V. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (AUGUST 7, 2009)

In 1996, WellPoint and John Hancock Life Insurance Company (Hancock) entered into a complex business transaction. The transaction was documented with a series of contracts, each of which contained an express arbitration clause. A dispute arose. WellPoint and Hancock both demanded arbitration. Pursuant to the arbitration procedure agreed upon, each appointed its own party arbitrator. When the party arbitrator’s could not agree on a third arbitrator, the AAA made the appointment, again as provided in the agreements. After over two years of extensive discovery and procedural disputes, WellPoint's party arbitrator resigned. Hancock objected but the panel, including Hancock's party arbitrator, approved the resignation. Hancock again objected when WellPoint proposed specific names for the vacancy. Hancock's party arbitrator proposed a compromise that WellPoint accepted -- and Hancock supported. Under the proposal, the panel suggested several candidates from which WellPoint could choose. Again, Hancock objected but also agreed that the replacement arbitrator met the prerequisites for service. The panel awarded WellPoint almost $30 million. WellPoint filed a petition to confirm the award -- Hancock cross-petitioned to vacate the award. The district court confirmed the award. Hancock appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Ripple and Wood affirmed. The Court rejected Hancock's argument that the panel "exceeded their powers" under § 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act when they selected a third arbitrator in a manner not provided for in the agreement. Although the Court conceded that the party's agreements did not provide a process for filling a vacancy, it noted that § 5 of the Act does. Section 5 expressly provides that a district court can appoint an arbitrator in the event of a vacancy were no provision exists in the party's agreement. Given the express remedy in § 5, the Court was unwilling to interpret the act in a way that would allow a party to forgo its § 5 remedy but get the same relief under § 10 after the arbitration is complete -- and it loses. Hancock's failure to avail itself of the remedy under § 5 amounts to a forfeiture of its challenge to the third arbitrator.

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

FISCHER v. LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE CO. (August 4, 2009)

After five years as a programmer with Stein Roe, Bruce Fischer complained of memory loss and problems with his attention. He applied for and received short-term disability benefits. A few months later, he submitted a claim for long-term benefits. The three medical reports he submitted with his application contained diagnoses of severe or profound depression. The plan administrator approved his application but informed him of the plan's 24-month maximum benefit period for mental illnesses, including depression. After the 24 months, the plan discontinued Fischer's benefits. Fischer continued to see additional medical personnel during the period of the plan's evaluation and his appeal. In all, at least thirteen physicians reviewed Fischer’s case. There was disagreement among the physicians as to whether Fischer's condition was organic or psychological. Fischer brought an action under ERISA for reinstatement of benefits. The district court granted summary judgment to the plan administrator. Fischer appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Flaum and Wood affirmed. The Court noted its limited scope of review. Only if the plan's decision is arbitrary and capricious will the court disturb it. The Court noted the "ample evidence" in the record supporting Fischer's contention that his condition is organic, at least in part. It also noted, however, the evidence in the record that concluded that his condition was solely psychological. On that record, applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review, Fischer cannot prevail.

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

BAIRD v. RENBARGER (August 3, 2009)

Joe Baird owned a body shop in Shelbyville, Indiana. After he purchased an antique automobile, he had his office call the police department to check the vehicle's motor number. Although an officer verified the number, he soon thereafter reported his suspicion to a prosecutor that the number was altered. He obtained a search warrant for the automobile and he and several other officers, including Officer Renbarger, executed the warrant. Officer Renbarger carried a 9 mm. submachine gun and rounded up a number of people in the surrounding shops and warehouses, including a group of Amish men. He held the individuals for almost two hours while the search was conducted. The officers located the car and concluded that the motor number had not been altered. Baird brought suit against the officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983. He alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment and state law claims for trespass, negligence and false imprisonment. The district court denied Renbarger's motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Renbarger appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Wood affirmed. The Court set out the two-step Saucier inquiry: whether a constitutional right has been violated and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the conduct. Whether the seizure was unreasonable is an objective test requiring an analysis of the severity of the alleged crime, the presence of an immediate threat and whether there is any resistance. Here, these factors all support the unreasonableness of the seizure. The only alleged crime concerned a vehicle motor number. No officer had any reason to believe there was any imminent threat. No one resisted the detention. The Court concluded that a jury could find that Renbarger violated Baird's rights. With respect to the second step of the inquiry, the Court concluded that it was clearly established that police officers are not entitled to point guns at citizens when there is no suggestion of any danger. The Court concurred with the district court's denial of qualified immunity.

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

ASKEW v. SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY (May 18, 2009)

Carl Askew alleges that he was the victim of excessive force at the hands of Officer Lopez while a pretrial detainee in the Cook County Jail. He filed a lawsuit naming Lopez and the Sheriff. He included two theories of relief under a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- that Lopez used excessive force and that Lopez was deliberately indifferent to his safety. The district court dismissed his complaint on the grounds that he failed to name Cook County as a defendant. Askew appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Rovner and Wood vacated and remanded. The Court concluded that the district court misapplied Rule 19. Rule 19 draws a distinction between joinder of parties when it is feasible and joinder of parties when it is not feasible -- because it would defeat jurisdiction or the party is beyond the personal jurisdiction of the court or the party could make an objection to the venue. Rule 19 (a)(1) addresses a "required party" whose joinder is feasible. Once such a party is identified, Rule 19 (a)(2) requires a court to order that the person be made a party. Here, the Court concluded that the lower court was correct in finding that Cook County was a required party, at least part of it. It correctly read Carver II for the proposition that an Illinois county is a necessary party in any suit seeking damages from its sheriff. Ironically, Askew waived his claim against the Sheriff in his appellate brief. Although he did so under the mistaken impression that the lower court was correct in dismissing the claim against the Sheriff, he is bound by his waiver. The case may still proceed against Lopez, however. The county is not an indispensable party in the case against Lopez. Any judgment entered against Lopez would be entered against him in his individual capacity notwithstanding any right on his part to recover the judgment from the county.

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

ILLINOIS INVESTMENT TRUST NO. 92-7163 v. AMERICAN GRADING CO. (April 8, 2009)

Resource Technology Corp. ("RTC") collected methane gas at landfills and converted the gas into energy. In 1995, RTC entered into a ten-year lease at the McCook landfill. RTC was to install and operate a methane collection and conversion system in exchange for royalties. Although the actual royalties were computed on the sale of electrical energy, the lease required RTC to pay a $100,000 royalty advance at the beginning of each year. RTC entered bankruptcy in 1999. The bankruptcy proceeded for several years. When the 2006 royalty advance payment became due, the trustee did not pay it. A few weeks later the owner of the landfill requested that the trustee refrain from entering the premises. In March of 2006, the trustee entered into a settlement agreement with some of RTC's creditors. Illinois Investment sought an order under the agreement compelling the estate to assume the McCook lease. The lessor objected, asserting that the ten-year lease term had expired. The court ruled that the lease had been extended for a five-year term. The lessor then sent a notice of termination of the lease. The bankruptcy court determined that the lessor validly terminated the lease as a result of RTC's failure to make the royalty payment. Illinois Investment appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Wood and Williams affirmed. The Court ruled that the failure to pay the advance royalty was a material breach and allowed the lessor to terminate the lease. Even if no royalties were generated during the year, as Illinois Investment argued, the Court concluded that the advance royalty was still required, as security for RTC's performance under the lease.

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

FOR YOUR EASE ONLY, INC. v. CALGON CARBON CORP. (March 31, 2009)

For Your Ease Only ("FYEO") sells jewelry boxes on the Home Shopping Network (“HSN”). Several years ago, FYEO obtained a default judgment in excess of $2 million against Mark Schneider and his wholly owned company Product Concepts Company ("PCC"). At the time of the judgment, PCC's principal assets were a relationship with and the right to payments from the HSN. In order to collect the judgment, FYEO began searching for assets. Schneider had since moved to Costa Rica. It noticed the deposition of Doug Fournier, Schneider’s brother-in-law. The subpoena advised Fournier of the lawsuit and the judgment. When Fournier got the subpoena, he met Schneider in Costa Rica. There, Schneider transferred his company's rights under the HSN agreement to a company that Fournier would create when he returned to the United States (Anewco). FYEO served HSN with a third-party citation prohibiting them from transferring any property or money to the judgment debtors. Notwithstanding the citation, HSN paid almost $400,000 to Anewco. FYEO requested an order for the turnover of all payments made by HSN. The district court denied the request, concluding that Fournier had acted in good faith and the transfer was not voidable under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA). FYEO appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Wood and Tinder vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded. The Court identified one of the central issues on appeal as whether Schneider’s transfer to Fournier was made in good faith. Relying on Illinois cases, the Court concluded that a transferee who knows about a judgment against a transferor does not take assets in good faith. Here, the records indicated that Fournier knew about the judgment against Schneider at the time of transfer. Since he did not accept the assets in good faith, the transfer is voidable under the UFTA. The other issue on appeal is whether HSN violated the citation when it began making payments to Anewco. The Court rejected HSN's argument that it should not be found liable because it faced the choice of violating the citation or breaching the contract. The Court noted that HSN could have arranged to have had the funds held in escrow or in the registry of the court. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that the record was not clear that HSN had actually violated the citation. The Court therefore remanded for the district court to make that initial determination.  

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

CAMPION, BARROW AND ASSOCIATES, INC. v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD (March 24, 2009)

Dr. Michael Campion, through his firm, provided psychological evaluations. His clients included the City of Springfield. The services were provided pursuant to a contract executed in 2000 and automatically renewed annually. Timothy Davlin became mayor in 2003. Davlin was quite vocal in his criticism of psychological evaluations but continued the services on the advice of a city attorney. Beginning in mid-2004, several articles in the local newspaper criticized Dr. Campion for his involvement with a conservative group and his failure to disclose that involvement on his resume. An alderman reacted to the articles by pressuring Davlin to replace Dr. Campion. In mid-2005, the City Council unanimously approved a contract with a different psychologist. Although the city did not terminate the contract with Dr. Campion, it began referring all evaluations to the new psychologist. Dr. Campion brought an action against the city pursuant to § 1983, alleging that the city violated his First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the city, concluding that Campion had not demonstrated that his speech was a motivating factor in the city's decision. Campion appeals

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Wood and Williams affirmed. The Court noted that the only issue before it was whether Campion produced enough evidence that his protected activity was a factor in the city's decision. The Court rejected Campion's argument that it was the mayor, not the City Council, that actually had the power to act. Illinois law authorizes only the City Council to enter into contracts. The evidence here supports the fact that it was the Council that acted. The Court concluded that there was a lack of evidence indicating that the City Council was retaliating against Campion because of his speech or associations.

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

HECKER v. DEERE & COMPANY (February 12, 2009)

Deere & Co. sponsors 401(k) plans for its employees. It engaged Fidelity Management Trust Co. (“Trust”) to serve as trustee of two of the plans. Trust administered employees’ accounts, maintained records, and advised Deere regarding investment options to include in the plans. Both plans offered many different investment choices – Fidelity mutual funds, two investment funds managed by Trust, a Deere stock option, and an option that provided a link to over 2500 funds managed by different companies. The plan’s participants managed their own funds from among the choices. Each of the funds imposed a percentage of assets fee upon participants. Fidelity Management & Research Co. (“Research”) is the investment advisor for the Fidelity mutual funds. Research earned revenue from the mutual fund fees and shared it with Trust. Trust’s only compensation for managing Deere’s plans was the fee from Research. Dennis Hecker and other plan participants brought this class action against Deere, alleging that Deere violated its fiduciary duty under ERISA by providing options in the plans that charged excessive fees and by not disclosing the fee structure between Trust and Research. Hecker also sued Trust and Research as functional fiduciaries. The district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss without addressing the class issue. Hecker appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Wood and Tinder affirmed. The Court addressed several issues on appeal:
     1) Defendants’ motions to dismiss included hundreds of pages of documents related to the plans. The documents were either referred to in the complaint or were publicly available. The Court rejected Hecker’s argument that the district court improperly considered documents outside the complaint. The documents were used only to show the disclosures that had been made to plaintiffs. The district court was within its discretion to consider them without converting the motion to one for summary judgment.
     2) Deere admits that it owed some fiduciary duties to plaintiffs. Trust and Research, however, deny that they are fiduciaries. The district court agreed. Hecker argues only that they are “functional fiduciaries.” In order to be a functional fiduciary, the Court stated, one must exercise some discretionary management or control over the plan. The Hecker complaint alleged that Trust and Research “played a role,” not that they exercised control. The Court held Hecker to his complaint and rejected his attempts to change his theory on appeal.
     3) Even if Deere left an inaccurate impression that it was paying for the management of the fund, the Court agreed with the district court that there was nothing illegal about the revenue sharing agreement described in the complaint. The participants were fully informed of the amount of fees imposed by each fund and were free to direct their assets to whichever fund they chose. In order for there to be a breach of a fiduciary duty, there must have been a material omission. How Research distributed its fee is not material to plaintiffs – and they cannot make out a breach of fiduciary duty claim for that omission.
     4) Hecker also asserts that Deere breached its fiduciary duty by selecting investment options with excessive fees. The Court held that no rational trier of fact could conclude that Deere failed to offer a sufficient array of vehicles – it offered over 2500 different vehicles with varying fees, all of which were also available to the public. The Court could find nothing in ERISA that required any particular mix of plans – so Deere’s decision may not even be within its fiduciary responsibilities. Even if it is, the Court found no breach. 
     5) The Court also addressed the ERISA “safe harbor” provision as an alternative grounds for affirmance. The normal ERISA imposition of a fiduciary duty on a plan manager is modified when the participants: exercise independent control of their assets, can choose from a broad range of alternatives, and have sufficient information to make informed choices. Then, a fiduciary is not liable for a participant’s loss resulting from that exercise of control. Although this “safe harbor” provision is an affirmative defense normally not applied on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court noted that it can be applied when the complaint establishes the very elements of the defense. Here, the 2500+ options to plan participants with fees ranging from .07% to 1% establish the elements of the safe harbor for Deere and Trust and Research.
     6) The Court summarily rejected Hecker’s complaints with respect to the court’s refusal to entertain an amended complaint and its award of costs.

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

DOSS v. CLEARWATER TITLE (December 24, 2008)

Doss refinanced his home. First Franklin Financial Corporation (“Franklin”) loaned him $135,000 on the condition that he obtain title insurance. He did so. At closing, the itemization of costs indicated that he paid $500 for the title insurance. In fact, he paid almost $1500. Doss filed suit against Franklin and others, alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. The court entered a default judgment against Franklin, which Franklin moved to set aside. Other defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, alleging that Doss sold his home before filing suit. Although Doss disputed this fact in the district court, the court nevertheless granted the motion and dismissed the TILA count. The court then exercised its discretion to dismiss the state law claims as well. It also struck “as moot” all pending motions, including Franklin’s motion to set aside the default. Doss appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Wood and Tinder reversed and remanded. The Court first rejected defendants’ argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction because of Doss’ sale of the property. TILA does provide that the right of rescission expires upon the sale of the property. That provision is not jurisdictional, however. It is simply a precondition to substantive relief. The Court also addressed its own jurisdiction, given that the district court dismissed without prejudice. Although a dismissal without prejudice is usually not appealable, the Court held that the case fit within an exception. The Court will entertain an appeal where it is clear that the court below was finished with the case and where TILA’s three year period of repose would have prevented Doss from refiling the case.

On the merits, the Court held that the district court erred in relying on the deed, a matter outside the pleading, in granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Instead, the court should have converted the motion to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment and given Doss a chance to respond. Furthermore, the deed was not a subject for judicial notice since its very validity was in dispute. The Court added that a) Franklin’s motion was not moot but since it did not cross-appeal, the default judgment is final, and b) the state law claims should be reinstated.

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

SEEGER v. AFNI, INC. (December 8, 2008)

AFNI is a debt collector. Cingular is (or was) a cellular telephone service provider. Cingular contracts with individuals to provide telephone service. It typically includes in its contracts a provision that its customer is obligated to pay the fees of a collection agency and other costs Cingular incurs in enforcing its rights under the contracts. In 2004-05, Cingular sold some delinquent customer accounts to AFNI. AFNI sent collection letters to plaintiff Seeger and others. The letters stated that the recipient was responsible for collection fees. In 2005, Seeger and other plaintiffs filed suit. They alleged that AFNI’s actions violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Wisconsin Consumer Act (“WCA”). The district court certified a class and granted summary judgment to the class. It held that AFNI’s action violated both the FDCPA and WCA because the owner of a debt is not allowed to impose a collection fee for its own benefit (as opposed to that it pays a third-party collector). AFNI appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Cudahy and Wood affirmed. The Court agreed that AFNI could prevail if the fee was allowed either by the contract or by Wisconsin law. It turned first to the law. Wisconsin does permit recovery of losses that are the natural and probable result of a breach of contract. The Court noted, however, that the record was silent on the issue of AFNI’s cost of debt collection and could not support a characterization of the fee as a form of allowable damages. Turning to the contracts, the Court agreed with the court below that the contracts allowed Cingular only to collect fees it “incurred” in collecting a debt. The way the parties structured their arrangement, neither Cingular nor AFNI “incurred” any collection fees. Finally, the Court addressed AFNI’s argument that it was entitled to the bona fide defense in the FDCPA. The Court identified a growing split in the circuits on the issue of whether the bona fide defense applies to mistakes of law. It did not express an opinion on that issue, however. Rather. it decided that AFNI did not maintain reasonable procedures to prevent the error, which is an element of the defense.

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

KING v. CITY OF MADISON (December 4, 2008)

Gail King was a city bus driver in Madison, Wisconsin (“City”). She developed some health issues and became unable to work. After she took a six-month unpaid disability leave, the City placed her on layoff status. If she became able to return to work during the layoff period, her collective bargaining agreement gave her the right to a) displace the most junior employee in her bargaining unit with an equal or lower job classification, b) fill a vacant position within her bargaining unit for which she was qualified, or c) compete for any vacant positions in other bargaining units. When she received doctor’s permission to return to work, it was qualified by a requirement that she not drive a bus. Based on her seniority and job classification, however, driving a bus was the only job which she could choose by right. King did apply for several vacant positions outside her unit but she was found not to be most qualified and was not selected. The City terminated King after two years of leave, a remedy they were entitled to under the collective bargaining agreement. King brought this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). She alleged that the City failed to accommodate her disability. The district court granted summary judgment to the City. It held that King’s medical condition did not substantially limit her major life activity and she was therefore not a qualified individual with a disability. Additionally, it held that the City provided reasonable accommodation. King appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Wood and Tinder affirmed. The Court stated the requirements of an ADA claim. To prevail, King had to establish that she is a qualified individual with a disability, that the City was aware of her disability, and that the City failed to accommodate her disability. The Court addressed only the accommodation prong. Although an employer can accommodate a disabled person by reassigning her to a different job, an employer need not do so if it would violate a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory” policy of the employer. The City’s collective bargaining agreement is such a policy. The City complied with the policy in a neutral manner and was not in violation of the ADA.

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

HAYES v. SNYDER  (October 9, 2008)

Floyd Hayes, a Vietnam War veteran, was serving a ten-year sentence at the Hill Correctional Center (“Hill”) in Illinois. In 2000, Hayes developed testicular cysts. Tests revealed that the cysts were benign. A Hill physician determined that neither a biopsy nor urological referral were indicated. Hayes’ condition worsened and he began to experience more pain. He requested a urology referral in 2001. Hill personnel declined. In September, he began receiving an antibiotic and over-the-counter pain medication. Beginning in October, he saw Dr. Hamby twice and then started seeing Dr. Shute. Dr. Shute wanted to refer Hayes to a urologist and administer prescription pain medication but Hamby refused to approve. Hayes complained to Hill personnel. He sent letters to the Director and to his staff. He described in significant detail his condition and the extreme swelling and pain he experienced. He complained that he needed to see a specialist but that Hamby would not approve. The Hill staff investigated Hayes’ complaint by seeking information from the medical staff. Hamby himself responded to the inquiry by the staff with a lengthy e-mail. He confirmed that Hayes had two cysts but concluded that they were stable but for “self-reported swelling and occasional tenderness.” Hayes and the non-medical staff continued their correspondence. The staff continued to base its responses to Hayes on communications from Hamby that nothing further needed to be done. Hayes filed a formal grievance complaining of inadequate treatment for his pain. The grievance officer denied his grievance, relying on Hamby’s assurance that Hayes was “treated and tested” appropriately.

Upon his release from Hill, Hayes went directly to a nearby VA hospital. Although he complained of testicular pain, the hospital referred him to the psychiatric ward. They allowed Hayes only a few minutes with a urologist. It seems that the Hill staff had called the hospital to warn them that Hayes might be coming and to advise them that his problems were principally psychiatric. Hayes was released after ten days. He went to his home in Kentucky where he visited the local VA hospital there. He received an evaluation, an ultrasound, and a urology referral. Hayes was diagnosed with Peyronie’s disease, a connective tissue disorder that is often painful. The disease is not easily recognized or well understood, even by urologists. Hayes was referred to and is still being treated by a pain management specialist.

Hayes filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Hamby for his failure to treat his condition and against the non-medical staff at Hill for their failure to respond to his condition properly. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the merits and on the basis of qualified immunity. Hayes appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Ripple, and Wood reversed in part and affirmed in part. The Court started with the rule and the test. The defendants are liable if they displayed “deliberate indifference” to Hayes’ medical needs. Hayes must establish that the condition itself, objectively, is sufficiently serious. Then he must establish that the prison officials knew of and disregarded an excessive health risk. The Court first addressed the objective prong of the test. In finding that a reasonable trier of fact could find in Hayes' favor on the objective test, the Court relied on Hayes’ complaints of extreme pain and swelling and Hamby’s refusal to refer Hayes to a specialist. It disregarded the fact that the disease was quite rare and hard to diagnose, given Hamby’s refusal to even make a referral.

The analysis of the subjective element of the test required separate approaches for Dr. Hamby and the non-medical defendants. The Court relied on several facts in the record to conclude that Hayes could meet the test with respect to Hamby.  Hamby a) refused to approve the urology referral, b)may have stopped minimal treatment of ice-packs and non-prescription pain medication in retaliation for Hayes' complaints, c)  testified that he would never prescribe pain medication for a prisoner, and d) was dismissive of Hayes' needs in his deposition testimony. The Court found these to be sufficient facts to establish that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Hamby’s conduct constituted deliberate indifference.

Addressing the non-medical personnel, the Court stated that non-medical personnel are generally justified in believing that a prisoner is being adequately cared for if he is in the hands of medical personnel. Here, the non-medical personnel investigated Hayes’ complaints. They were entitled to rely on the professional judgment of the medical professionals. The Court held that Hayes could not establish his claims against the non-medical personnel.
 

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

DOMINQUEZ v. HENDLEY (September 30, 2008)

Alejandro Dominguez was fifteen when a neighbor accused him of sexual assault. He was convicted of home invasion and sexual assault and spent four years in prison before he was paroled. Dominguez always maintained his innocence. He eventually proved his innocence through DNA testing. Not only did he succeed in getting his conviction vacated, the Governor pardoned him. Dominguez brought this action against an investigating police officer and the City of Waukegan under 42 U.S.C. §1983. He alleged that the officer (a) withheld exculpatory material from the prosecutor and defense, (b) conducted an improper and prejudicial identification, and (c) fabricated evidence. At trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Dominguez in excess of $9 million. Hendley and the City appeal.
 

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Ripple, and Wood affirmed. The appellants raised numerous issues, none of which convinced the panel of reversible error.

• The Court rejected the Statute of Limitations argument as the complaint was filed within two years of the date the conviction was vacated. One who brings a §1983 claim for violation of due process based on denial of a fair trial must first have the conviction vacated. The limitations period runs from that date. The appellants’ argument that it should run from the arraignment would have merit only if the complaint was based on false arrest rather than unfair trial.
• The Court rejected the argument that Hendley was entitled to qualified immunity because Dominguez did not prove that Hendley proximately caused the alleged violations. In the eyes of the Court, the argument was not one of qualified immunity, but simply an attack on the sufficiency of the evidence of the violations. The Court found sufficient evidence to support the verdict.
• The Court found as irrelevant whether Dominguez proved that the arrest was without probable cause. Again, Hendley was misreading the complaint as one simply attacking the arrest.
• Appellants’ next argument was that Dominguez did not properly plead or prove that Hendley failed to provide exculpatory evidence. Any supposed flaw in the pleading was overcome by Hendley’s failure to object and presentation of affirmative evidence on the issue. The panel had no difficulty in finding sufficient evidence in the record to support the verdict.
• Appellants’ argued a number of errors in the instructions. Some were rejected because they were based on the appellants’ erroneous “false arrest” theory. Others were addressed to causation. The Court found that the district court’s instructions on proximate cause were sufficient.
• The appellants’ submitted a litany of supposed trial errors, the cumulative effect of which they claim deprived them of a fair trial. The Court never had to address the cumulative effect of any errors because, in fact, they held that not one of the items raised amounted to error.
   

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