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

Rodriguez-Molinero, a Mexican citizen, has lived in the U.S. for many years as a lawful permanent resident. His involvement in the methamphetamine trade led to his conviction of federal drug crimes and a prison sentence that he has served. He remains in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security, and as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony consisting of trafficking in controlled substances, is subject to removal, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1101(a)(43)(B). He sought CAT deferral of removal on the ground that should he be sent back to Mexico he is highly likely to be tortured by the Zetas Mexican drug cartel. Longmire, his expert witness, stated in a report credited by the immigration judge that in 2012 the Zetas killed 49 people and dumped their bodies on a highway. In 2006, Rodriguez-Molinero was tortured by Mexican police, who burned him with cigarettes, beat him, and stabbed him with an ice pick at the behest of the cartel. He owes the gang about $30,000. Members of the Zetas kidnapped and murdered his great-uncle after asking for information about Rodriguez-Molinero. The Seventh Circuit reversed the immigration judge’s ruling that he had failed to show that he faced a substantial risk of torture were he to be removed to Mexico, or that the Mexican government would acquiesce in the torture. View "Rodriguez-Molinero v. Lynch" on Justia Law

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought an enforcement action under Section 707(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e‐6, claiming that CVS Pharmacy violates Title VII by offering a severance agreement, with waivers of claims against CVS, that could deter terminated employees from filing charges with the EEOC or participating in EEOC proceedings. The district court granted summary judgment for CVS, interpreting Title VII as requiring the EEOC to conciliate its claim before bringing a civil suit. The EEOC had refused to engage in conciliation. The court was also skeptical that an employer’s decision to offer a severance agreement to terminated employees could serve as the basis for a “pattern or practice” suit under Title VII, without any allegation that the employer engaged in retaliatory or discriminatory employment practices. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Under Section 707(e), the EEOC is required to comply with all of the pre‐suit procedures contained in Section 706 when it pursues “pattern or practice” violations. Because the EEOC has not alleged that CVS engaged in discrimination or retaliation by offering the Agreement to terminated employees, the EEOC failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. View "Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc." on Justia Law

Cincinnati Insurance issued a liability policy to Painters, which allowed the insured to add an “additional insured” by oral agreement, if that agreement preceded the occurrence and “a certificate of insurance ... has been issued.” No permission from Cincinnati is required, if the insureds have a relationship consistent with the policy. Painters was hired to paint Vita’s premises and orally agreed to add Vita as an additional insurer. Painters’ worker fell, before there was any written confirmation of the oral agreement, and remains in a coma. In a suit by the insurer, seeking a declaration that Vita was not covered based on a certificate issued to Vita the day after the accident, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Summary judgment was premature. The policy is ambiguous. A certificate could be regarded a prerequisite to coverage of the additional insured, but also could be intended merely to memorialize the oral agreement. The policy could also mean that the oral agreement must be memorialized in writing before the insured can file a claim. Oral agreements are valid contracts and the policy is explicit that an oral agreement is sufficient to add an insured. The certificate is not a contract, but “a matter of information only” that “confers no rights upon the certificate holder.” View "Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Vita Food Prods, Inc." on Justia Law

A few months after Horsley turned 18, she mailed in an application for an Illinois Firearm Owner’s Identification Card (FOID) card along with the requisite check for $10. Horsley’s application was returned to her with a letter, informing her that the application was incomplete because she was not yet 21 years old and her application did not contain the signature of a parent or guardian. Horsley did not appeal or seek further review from the Director of the Illinois State Police, but filed suit, alleging that the Illinois statutory scheme violated her rights under the Second Amendment. The district court and Seventh Circuit rejected her claims. Illinois does not impose a categorical ban on firearm possession for 18-to- 20-year-olds whose parents do not consent. When an applicant cannot obtain a parent or guardian signature, he may appeal to the Director for a FOID card; the process for 18-to-20-year-olds is not unconstitutional. View "Horsley v. Trame" on Justia Law

An association of Indiana convenience stores filed suit seeking to invalidate a state law that restricts the sale of cold packaged beer. The suit claims the law violates the Equal Protection Clause because some kinds of stores may sell cold beer but grocery and convenience stores may not. The district court upheld the law; the Seventh Circuit affirmed. While rejecting the state’s argument that the Twenty-first Amendment gives it “nearly absolute” authority to regulate alcohol sales, the court held that the cold-beer statute is subject to rational-basis review and survives that lenient standard. To succeed on its claim, the Association would have to “negative every conceivable basis which might support” the statutory scheme. The Association’s policy arguments for allowing cold-beer sales by grocery and convenience stores are matters for the Indiana legislature, not the federal judiciary. View "IN Petroleum Mkters & Convenience Store Ass'n v. Cook" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Woodward employees, filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, alleging that Woodward falsely certified helicopter engine parts that it sold to the government. Plaintiffs had complained that the sensors at issue did not meet quality standards and had refused to work on the order. Following an investigation, a Defense Contract Management Agency Technical Specialist concluded that there was “nothing either incorrect or wrong with the procedures, assembly, or testing of the sensors.” The government continues to order, pay for, and use Woodward’s sensor The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Woodward, agreeing that even if Woodward made false statements to the government, no reasonable jury could find that it made the statements knowingly or that the statements were material. View "Marshall v. Woodward, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants are national securities exchanges registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and operate as self‐regulatory organizations that regulate markets in conformance with securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78a. Plaintiffs are securities firms and members of the defendant exchanges. They compete for customer order flow by displaying buy and sell quotations for particular stocks. Between at least January 2004 and June 2011, each defendant charged “payment for order flow” (PFOF) fees. Each defendant exchange imposes PFOF fees when a trade is made for a customer; however, these fees are not imposed for proprietary “house trades,” where a firm trades on its own behalf. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of plaintiffs’ suit, in which they sought to recover PFOF fees they claim were improperly charged. The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies before the SEC. View "Citadel Sec., LLC v. Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc." on Justia Law

Ajayi, an electrical engineer, wanted to start a business selling MRI products in Africa. He incorporated GRI in Illinois and another company in Africa and sought investors. While traveling, he solicited a $45,000 investment from Brown. After returning home, Ajayi received a $344,657.84 check, payable to another company . He called Brown, who explained that the accounting department had made an error, told Ajayi to deposit the check, and stated that they would work out a way for Ajayi to refund the difference. Ajayi deposited the check through an ATM into his GRI account, which previously had a balance of $90.08, After the check cleared, Brown flew to Chicago and demanded repayment. Pursuant to Brown’s instructions, between December 9 and December 12, 2009, Ajayi wrote at least five checks to himself from the GRI account and cashed them. Ajayi was convicted of five counts of bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1344(1) and (2) and money laundering, 18 U.S.C. 1957(a) and was sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit found that there was sufficient evidence that Ajayi knew that the check was altered and upheld the exclusion of the emails, but concluded that four bank fraud counts were multiplicitous. View "United States v. Ajayi" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought this putative class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), claiming that LVNV Funding, Inc. violated the FDCPA when it sought to collect or settle debts that are not legally enforceable because the statute of limitations has run. Plaintiff sought to certify a class of persons in Illinois who had received dunning letters from LVNV containing language that would mislead an unsophisticated consumer into believing that the debt was legally enforceable. The district court declined to certify the class. Plaintiff petitioned the Seventh Circuit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) for permission to appeal the district court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit vacated the order of the district court, holding that the district court denied class certification on an improper ground and raised a question worthy of immediate appeal under Rule 23(f). Remanded for further proceedings on the class allegations. View "Scott McMahon v. LVNV Funding, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs purchased a restaurant in the City of Angola, Indiana and planned to convert it to an adult-entertainment venue featuring dancers wearing only “pasties and a g-string.” Angola reacted to the proposed sexually-oriented business by amending its zoning and other ordinances to make this use of the property impermissible. Plaintiffs sued the City and two of its officials in federal court alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. The district court denied the motion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs’ claim that the City’s actions violated its right to expression under the First Amendment failed because Plaintiffs stipulated away the key factual issue in the analysis of the claim; and (2) to the extent that the preliminary-injunction motion was premised on the state-law claims, the motion was properly denied. View "BBL, Inc. v. City of Angola" on Justia Law