Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Epic Systems Corporation sued Tata Consultancy Services Limited and Tata America International Corporation for unauthorized use of confidential information. A jury awarded Epic $240 million in compensatory damages and $700 million in punitive damages. The district court reduced these amounts to $140 million and $280 million, respectively, and entered judgment in 2017. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the compensatory damages but limited the punitive damages to $140 million, leading to a new judgment in 2022. Tata agreed to pay postjudgment interest on the compensatory damages from 2017 but argued that interest on the punitive damages should start from 2022. The district court sided with Tata, and Epic appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that both the 2017 and 2022 judgments included $140 million in compensatory damages and at least $140 million in punitive damages. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno, which held that postjudgment interest should be based on the date when damages became ascertainable. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the $140 million punitive damages were ascertainable from the 2017 judgment, as neither the district court nor the appellate court had ever deemed this amount excessive.The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to award postjudgment interest on the $140 million punitive damages starting from October 3, 2017. View "Epic Systems Corporation v Tata Consultancy Services Limited" on Justia Law

Union Pacific Railroad Company, as the corporate successor to a dissolved coal mining company, periodically received mine subsidence claims from the Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund. The Fund, acting as a reinsurer for primary insurers offering mine subsidence coverage, sought to recover its reinsurance payments from Union Pacific. After years of litigation, Union Pacific sued the Fund for declaratory and injunctive relief to preclude future cases. The Fund moved to dismiss, and the district court allowed the complaint seeking injunctive relief to proceed on certain theories but not others. Union Pacific brought an interlocutory appeal.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois had previously ruled that Union Pacific could seek declaratory and injunctive relief for subsidence claims acquired by the Fund before the Gillespie case and the 2019 Opinion but not for future claims. Union Pacific amended its complaint, and the district court reiterated its earlier decision, dismissing the request for future injunctive relief while allowing the case to proceed on the earlier claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that it lacked appellate jurisdiction. The court determined that the district court's order was a narrowing of the injunctive relief rather than a definitive refusal. The court also found that the injunctive relief sought on appeal was not substantially different from the relief still pending in the district court. As a result, the appeal was dismissed. View "Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund" on Justia Law

Thomas Wilkinson was charged with drug and firearm offenses, including possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The indictment noted two prior state drug convictions relevant to sentencing. Wilkinson initially pleaded not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty. The government filed a notice under 21 U.S.C. § 851 to enhance Wilkinson's sentence based on one prior drug-trafficking conviction.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois accepted Wilkinson's guilty plea. However, before sentencing, it was discovered that the prior conviction cited in the § 851 notice did not qualify as a "serious drug felony" under federal law. The government then sought to use a different prior conviction, not mentioned in the § 851 notice, to enhance Wilkinson's sentence. The district court agreed, finding that the government had substantially complied with § 851's requirements, and sentenced Wilkinson to a total of twenty years in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the government failed to comply with the notice requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) by not providing written notice of the specific prior conviction it intended to use for the sentence enhancement before Wilkinson's guilty plea. The court found that this error was not harmless, as it affected Wilkinson's ability to make an informed decision about his plea and the district court's sentencing decision. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit vacated Wilkinson's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. View "USA v Wilkinson" on Justia Law

Mark Johnson was convicted by an Indiana jury of felony rape, felony criminal confinement, and misdemeanor battery. He appealed, arguing that the exclusion of certain DNA evidence and the destruction of the victim's blood sample before toxicology testing violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The Indiana Court of Appeals vacated his convictions for criminal confinement and battery on double jeopardy grounds but affirmed the rape conviction. Johnson's petition to transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court was denied. He then sought post-conviction review in state court and, after exhausting state remedies, sought federal habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied Johnson's habeas petition, concluding that his DNA-related claim was procedurally defaulted and that the state court reasonably applied federal law in determining that the State had not acted in bad faith when discarding the blood sample. Johnson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Johnson's claim regarding the exclusion of DNA evidence was procedurally defaulted because he failed to raise it in his petition for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. Additionally, the court found that the Indiana Court of Appeals reasonably applied federal law in determining that the police had not acted in bad faith when disposing of the blood sample, as the evidence was only potentially exculpatory and there was no clear indication of bad faith. The court concluded that the state court's decision did not deviate from established federal law or constitute an unreasonable determination of the facts. View "Johnson v Sevier" on Justia Law

Steven Lindsey was convicted of murdering his wife in 2016 after three trials. He was sentenced to fifty-five years in prison. Lindsey appealed his conviction, but the Court of Appeals of Indiana denied his appeal, and the Indiana Supreme Court declined to hear his case. In 2019, Lindsey filed a pro se postconviction petition in state court, which has seen little progress over six years due to state court inaction and prosecution delays.The state court appointed a public defender for Lindsey nearly two years after he filed his petition, despite his wish to represent himself. The case experienced multiple delays, including the appointment and withdrawal of special prosecutors and the state court's failure to rule on Lindsey's motions. Lindsey actively tried to move his case forward, filing motions and responding to discovery requests, but the state court and prosecution's actions significantly delayed the proceedings.Lindsey then filed a federal habeas petition in the Northern District of Indiana in 2023, arguing that the inordinate delay in his state postconviction proceedings should excuse the exhaustion requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The district court dismissed his petition, finding the delays reasonable and attributing them to Lindsey's legal inexperience. Lindsey appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case.The Seventh Circuit found that the six-year delay in Lindsey's state postconviction proceedings was inordinate and attributable to the state. The court held that the delay rendered the state process ineffective in protecting Lindsey's rights, excusing him from the exhaustion requirement. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings on the merits of Lindsey's habeas petition. View "Lindsey v Neal" on Justia Law

Antonio Smith, an inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution in Wisconsin, was on a prolonged hunger strike to protest prison conditions. After refusing to leave his cell for a wellness check, correctional officers used force to extract him for three consecutive days without incident. On the fourth day, Captain Jay Van Lanen used pepper spray, despite knowing Smith had a medical contraindication. Smith experienced severe respiratory distress and was placed naked in a cold cell for 23 hours.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that there were no Eighth Amendment violations. Smith appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that a jury could determine that the use of pepper spray and the conditions of Smith's confinement violated the Eighth Amendment. However, the court ultimately affirmed the district court's decision based on qualified immunity, which protects officials from liability unless they violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.The court held that while the actions of Captain Van Lanen and Lieutenant Retzlaff could be seen as excessive and lacking legitimate penological purpose, the specific rights violated were not clearly established at the time. Therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found no evidence of excessive force during Smith's escort to the health unit, affirming summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. View "Smith v Kind" on Justia Law

While incarcerated at Ellsworth Correctional Institution in Wisconsin, the plaintiff was sexually assaulted and physically abused by a correctional officer, James Faulkner. Faulkner was later criminally convicted for these acts and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. The plaintiff subsequently filed a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 seeking damages from Faulkner and three supervisory officials, alleging violations of her constitutional rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to the supervisory officials, finding no evidence that they knew or should have known of Faulkner’s risk to inmates. The plaintiff did not appeal these rulings, effectively abandoning her claims against those defendants. Faulkner, having failed to answer the complaint, was found in default. The district court held a hearing to determine damages and ultimately awarded the plaintiff $1 million for pain and suffering and $3 million in punitive damages, but denied additional damages for lost income and future medical expenses due to insufficient and improperly presented evidence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s evidentiary rulings and the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the scope of Faulkner’s employment. The appellate court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion or commit legal error in excluding the plaintiff’s evidence on future damages, as the submissions failed to comply with statutory requirements and evidentiary rules. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments concerning employer liability, noting that the employer was not named as a party and that such issues were not properly before the court. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Dotson v. Faulkner" on Justia Law

Kevin Hodge was involved in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and pleaded guilty to the charge. The indictment specified that the conspiracy involved more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, which typically carries a ten-year statutory minimum sentence. However, Hodge met the criteria for the statutory "safety valve," which allows courts to disregard mandatory minimum sentences. Despite this, the district court sentenced him to ten years without discussing his eligibility for safety valve relief.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois initially handled the case. Hodge pleaded not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty. The court granted multiple continuances for his sentencing, partly due to his wife's serious health issues. The presentence investigation report (PSR) confirmed Hodge's eligibility for the safety valve, recommending a Guidelines range of 135 to 168 months. Hodge requested a sentence of time served, citing his wife's health and his role as primary caregiver. The district court sentenced him to 120 months, acknowledging his wife's health issues but emphasizing the large quantity of drugs involved. The court did not address Hodge's safety valve argument.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court had committed procedural error by not addressing Hodge's statutory safety valve argument, which is a principal mitigating argument. The Seventh Circuit noted that the district court's silence on this issue left uncertainty about whether it considered the safety valve's applicability. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit vacated Hodge's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, requiring the district court to engage with the safety valve argument. View "United States v. Hodge" on Justia Law

Sotir Libarov, a Bulgarian citizen, applied for lawful permanent resident status in the United States based on his marriage to Elizabeth Alonso Hernandez, a lawful permanent resident. USCIS interviewed both separately and concluded that the marriage was a sham, denying Libarov's application in June 2022. Libarov then submitted a FOIA request to ICE seeking documents related to himself. ICE initially routed the request to USCIS, but Libarov clarified he wanted documents from ICE. By November 2022, having received no response, Libarov filed a lawsuit against both ICE and USCIS.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Libarov's claims against USCIS and later granted summary judgment for ICE on most issues. The court ruled that Libarov could not seek declaratory relief solely for delayed FOIA disclosure and that FOIA provided an adequate remedy, precluding his APA claim. However, the court ordered ICE to disclose portions of the withheld document containing basic personal information about Libarov.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that Libarov was not entitled to declaratory relief for the delayed FOIA response, as the agency had eventually conducted an appropriate search and provided the requested documents. The court also upheld the district court's decision to withhold parts of the document under FOIA's exemption 7(A), which protects information related to ongoing law enforcement proceedings. Finally, the appellate court confirmed that FOIA provides an adequate remedy, thus barring Libarov's APA claim. View "Libarov v ICE" on Justia Law

In August 2021, the Cook County Health and Hospitals System implemented a policy requiring all personnel to be fully vaccinated against infectious diseases, including COVID-19. Exemptions were allowed for disability, medical conditions, or sincerely held religious beliefs. Plaintiffs, who are healthcare employees or contractors, requested religious exemptions, which were granted. However, the accommodation provided was a transfer to unpaid status pending termination, with a limited time to find a non-existent remote position. Plaintiffs argued this was religious discrimination violating the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois previously denied plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions against the vaccine mandates, including Cook County’s. The Seventh Circuit affirmed this denial, rejecting the plaintiffs' facial challenge to the mandate. On remand, plaintiffs amended their complaint but were denied permission to add a claim under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act until after the court ruled on the County’s motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed the second amended complaint, considering it a facial challenge, which had already been ruled upon.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and held that the plaintiffs waived their as-applied challenge by not raising it in the district court or their opening brief on appeal. The court also noted that plaintiffs conceded they no longer sought injunctive relief and did not pursue a facial challenge. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the constitutional claim. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of leave to amend the complaint to include the Illinois RFRA claim. The court criticized the plaintiffs' counsel for poor advocacy and procedural errors. View "Lukaszczyk v Cook County" on Justia Law