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

A 66-count, multi-defendant criminal indictment notified the defendants that the government would seek criminal forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. 982(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), (b) and 28 U.S.C. 2461(c) as part of any sentence imposed and would seek civil forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(C), (a)(1)(D), and 28 U.S.C. 2461(c). Furando and his companies pleaded guilty; Furando’s plea included agreed-upon forfeiture of personal property, assets, vehicles, funds, Saddle River, New Jersey real property, and proceeds from the sale of commercial real estate in Montvale. The subsequent preliminary forfeiture orders directed the government to give notice to potential third-party interest holders under 21 U.S.C. 853(n), which the government did.Furando’s wife and three companies (claimants) filed under 21 U.S.C. 853 to make their claim as innocent owners of the property. The district court denied the claimants’ petition to adjudicate the validity of their interest, granted the government’s motion for interlocutory sale of the Saddle River property, and denied the claimants’ section 853(n) petition without further explanation. The Seventh Circuit vacated in part. The district court erred in sua sponte denying the section 853(n) petition without a hearing or opportunity to amend. The government’s arguments that the claimants cannot prevail under 853(n)(6) and the arguments about prior vested interest are misplaced, because those statutory considerations are only relevant “after the hearing”—which never occurred. The court affirmed the order for an interlocutory sale. View "United States v. Furando" on Justia Law

Stevenson was injured in the course of his employment while moving a portable ladder in order to clean a component of a Windmoeller printing press. The ladder was supplied with the machine and was necessary to reach an interior printing plate. The ladder caught on the cable attached to the machine, which caused Stevenson to twist and injure his shoulder and back; he required surgery.Stevenson’s product-liability suit argued that the design of the machine, including the placement of the cable near the access door used to service the machine’s interior components, was defective and foreseeably gave rise to his injury. Stevenson asked the court to appoint an engineering expert. Fed. R. Evid. 706 codifies the power of a trial judge to appoint an expert to function as a neutral expert serving the court rather than any party. The district court denied this motion, reasoning Stevenson was really asking for the appointment of an expert to support his case, rather than a neutral expert. Stevenson contends that the month that the court allowed him to respond to a subsequent summary judgment motion was insufficient to hire his own expert, allow related discovery, and file his response.The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Windmoeller. Only an advocate expert could have filled the gap in Stevenson’s case. Stevenson could have asked for pre-authorization of the payment for such an expert from a court fund under Local Rule 83.40. View "Stevenson v. Windmoeller & Hoelscher Corp." on Justia Law

Fairway, co-owned by Johnson, who is African-American and Native-American, contracted with FedEx to deliver packages. FedEx later assigned Fairway's contract to another company. Johnson's suit under 42 U.S.C. 1981, alleged racial discrimination and breach of contract. A second complaint was voluntarily dismissed. According to FedEx, an arbitration settlement was reached, under which Johnson released all claims against FedEx. Johnson disputes that she was a party to any settlement.Johnson filed another suit against FedEx, claiming racial discrimination and that FedEx blocked a contract assignment to her as an individual and prevented an assignment to BN, a company of which she was the majority shareholder. The court dismissed her suit, rejecting Johnson’s argument that as Fairway’s business contact, she qualified as a party to the contract. Johnson was granted two weeks to amend her complaint, according to precise directions concerning the need for proof that Johnson asked FedEx to approve an assignment to Johnson. Johnson's amended complaint replaced herself as the plaintiff with a corporation, DJM, asserting she “was to be the majority shareholder” of DJM. The complaint did not allege that FedEx had blocked an attempted assignment to Johnson individually but alleged that FedEx blocked an assignment to DJM.The court dismissed, noting the “four-year statute of limitations for Johnson’s Section 1981 claim ha[d] elapsed.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed. “Given this procedural history, the district court could have done more than admonish Johnson.” FedEx could have been awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees. View "DJM Logistics, Inc. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc." on Justia Law

Arrive and Tech, compete to help customers coordinate shipments. Six employees at Arrive departed for Tech despite restrictive covenants. Arrive sued the six individuals and Tech for injunctive relief under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1836(b)(3), claiming irreparable harm because the individuals had breached their restrictive covenants and misappropriated trade secrets.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction. Arrive has an adequate remedy at law for each of its claimed injuries, and faces no irreparable harm. Even if its argument were not forfeited, lost opportunities cannot support a showing of irreparable harm under these circumstances. The type of harm Arrive alleges would ultimately translate into lost profits, albeit indirectly, as in the end there is no economic value to opportunities that are not converted to sales. Given the balance of harms, the district court was within its discretion to deny injunctive relief. The court noted that the expiration of the time period of a former employee’s restrictive covenants does not render moot an employer’s request for an injunction to prevent the former employee from violating those restrictive covenants. A court could still grant Arrive effectual relief in the form of an injunction, even though certain individual defendants no longer work for Traffic Tech. View "DM Trans, LLC v. Scott" on Justia Law

The federal government may deny admission or adjustment of status to a noncitizen “likely at any time to become a public charge, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A). For decades, “public charge” was understood to refer to noncitizens “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either (i) the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or (ii) institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” In 2019, the Department of Homeland Security expanded the meaning of “public charge” to disqualify a broader set of noncitizens from benefits. The Rule immediately generated extensive litigation.In 2020, the district court vacated the 2019 Rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701. In 2021, the federal government dismissed appeals defending the 2019 Rule in courts around the country. Several states subsequently sought to intervene in the proceedings, hoping to defend the 2019 Rule; they also moved for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). The district court denied the motions, finding each untimely. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to timeliness. The court declined to address other issues. View "Cook County, Illinois v. State of Texas" on Justia Law

In a nationwide class action on behalf of all customers of GLV, which operates in several states as Sports Performance Volleyball Club, the district court certified a class limited to customers of GLV’s Illinois locations. Later, the judge concluded that Mullen, who asserts that GLV committed fraud by failing to disclose allegations of sexual abuse by a coach, was an unsuitable class representative because Mullen had not been injured and invited her to find a substitute. She did not. The class was never decertified.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the rejection of the suit on summary judgment after noting that abstention might have been appropriate. All of the litigants are citizens of Illinois, the claim rests on state law, and the remaining stakes are modest. The sole asserted basis of federal jurisdiction is the Class Action Fairness Act, which applies to class actions with more than 100 class members, stakes exceeding $5 million, and minimal diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2). Illinois law requires the plaintiff to show that she was “in some manner, deceived” by misrepresentation or material omission. Mullen was aware of the allegations against the coach. The court noted that the outcome does not bind any other person whose children attended the Club. View "Mullen v. GLV, Inc." on Justia Law

While residing in a nursing home, Hill died of COVID-19. Her estate sued in state court under the Illinois Nursing Home Care Act, The defendant removed the suit to federal court, asserting that Martin’s suit necessarily rests on federal law, 28 U.S.C.1441(a), and that it was “acting under” a federal officer under 28 U.S.C.1442(a)(1).The district judge remanded to state court. The Seventh Circuit affirmed,. The nursing home is subject to extensive federal regulation (especially for Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement), and CDC orders during the pandemic have increased that regulatory burden but regulation does not turn a private entity into a public actor. The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d, forbids liability under state law for injuries caused by use of a “covered countermeasure”, and creates a federal claim for injuries caused by “willful misconduct” in connection with covered countermeasures (payable from a federal fund), but does not preempt any other kind of claim nor occupy the field of health safety. The estate’s claims are not even arguably preempted. The principal disputes in this suit are likely to be whether the nursing home allowed members of the staff to work while ill or failed to isolate residents who contracted COVID-19, which are unrelated to federal law. View "Martin v. Petersen Health Operations, LLC" on Justia Law

Federal officials investigating Jaquez for distributing illegal drugs obtained an order authorized a wiretap on Jaquez’s cell phone and two orders authorizing a pen register that revealed the numbers that Jaquez called or that called him. Federal officials disclosed some of this information to state officials, who used it to prosecute Jaque. He is serving a 36-year sentence. He has not been prosecuted in federal court. Seeking evidence for a collateral attack on his convictions, Jaquez filed a federal court motion, seeking copies of the applications, affidavits, and orders authorizing the pen register and the wiretap. Magistrate Judge Gotsch ordered some of the pen-register papers unsealed. Jaquez did not ask a district judge to review that decision but filed a notice of appeal within 60 days.The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. While 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(3) permits the assignment of duties to magistrate judges, the Northern District of Indiana has not authorized such delegation for wiretap-related matters and neither Jaquez nor the United States consented to the entry of final decision by a magistrate judge. The order was not entered by a district judge, and neither the district court nor the parties used the direct-appeal procedure allowed by 636(c). View "Jaquez v. United States" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs sued the LLC, for fraud and breach of contract. After Judge Coleman denied their motion to add Carrier (one of the LLC’s members) and D’Aprile (Carrier’s employer) as additional defendants, a jury returned a verdict of $905,000 in the plaintiffs’ favor. Judge Coleman denied the LLC’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, but its motion for a new trial remains pending. The plaintiffs filed a second suit against Carrier and D’Aprile, presenting the same substantive claims; it was assigned to Judge Kness, who dismissed it as barred by claim preclusion, even though the first suit is ongoing.The Seventh Circuit vacated and instructed that the second suit be assigned to Judge Coleman. The plaintiffs “are engaged in judge-shopping.” Local Rule 40.4 in the Northern District of Illinois permits judges to ask for consolidation of related suits before a single judge. The judiciary has an interest, independent of litigants’ goals, in avoiding messy, duplicative litigation. A second suit is unnecessary, whether plaintiffs win or lose in the first. View "Ewing v. Carrier" on Justia Law

In 2018, the Indiana Supreme Court held that the state holds exclusive title to Lake Michigan and its shores up to the lake’s ordinary high-water mark. The plaintiffs, who own beachfront property on Lake Michigan’s Indiana shores, believed that their property extended to the low-water mark, and filed suit, alleging that the ruling amounted to a taking of their property in violation of the Fifth Amendment–a “judicial taking.” The defendants were Indiana officeholders in their official capacities: the Governor, the Attorney General, the Department of Natural Resources Director, and the State Land Office Director.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. None of the named officials caused the plaintiffs’ asserted injury or is capable of redressing it, so the plaintiffs lack Article III standing. View "Pavlock v. Holcomb" on Justia Law