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

Apple Leisure specializes in packaged travel sales and resort management. In 2011 Scott and Natasha Mueller purchased an Apple all-inclusive honeymoon trip to Secrets Resort in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, through a Fond du Lac, Wisconsin travel agent. The contract attached to their travel vouchers explains in boldface type that “[t]he exclusive forum for the litigation of any claim or dispute arising out of … [this] trip shall be the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania.” While on her honeymoon, Natasha became ill after Secrets Resort served her contaminated fish. She was diagnosed with Ciguatera poisoning, a foodborne illness caused by eating certain reef fish infected with Ciguatera neurotoxins. The Muellers sued in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The district judge applied the doctrine of forum non conveniens and dismissed the case based on the forum-selection clause. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The judge’s decision was procedurally and substantively sound. A forum-selection clause channeling litigation to a nonfederal forum is enforced through the doctrine of forum non conveniens; only an exceptional public-interest justification can displace a contractual choice of forum. The Muellers have not identified any public interest to justify overriding the forum-selection clause in their travel contract. View "Mueller v. Apple Leisure Corp." on Justia Law

Apple Leisure specializes in packaged travel sales and resort management. In 2011 Scott and Natasha Mueller purchased an Apple all-inclusive honeymoon trip to Secrets Resort in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, through a Fond du Lac, Wisconsin travel agent. The contract attached to their travel vouchers explains in boldface type that “[t]he exclusive forum for the litigation of any claim or dispute arising out of … [this] trip shall be the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania.” While on her honeymoon, Natasha became ill after Secrets Resort served her contaminated fish. She was diagnosed with Ciguatera poisoning, a foodborne illness caused by eating certain reef fish infected with Ciguatera neurotoxins. The Muellers sued in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The district judge applied the doctrine of forum non conveniens and dismissed the case based on the forum-selection clause. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The judge’s decision was procedurally and substantively sound. A forum-selection clause channeling litigation to a nonfederal forum is enforced through the doctrine of forum non conveniens; only an exceptional public-interest justification can displace a contractual choice of forum. The Muellers have not identified any public interest to justify overriding the forum-selection clause in their travel contract. View "Mueller v. Apple Leisure Corp." on Justia Law

Testosterone replacement drugs have been FDA-approved prescription drugs for more than 60 years. In recent years, manufacturers have found a new market: older men. Numerous lawsuits were filed against manufacturers alleging that the drugs increase health risks. Cases alleging that the manufacturers failed to warn doctors and patients adequately about the risks, citing state product-liability laws, were consolidated for pretrial proceedings. The district court granted a motion to dismiss brought by Depo-T’s manufacturer, finding the failure-to-warn claims preempted by federal law. The court stated that DepoT’s manufacturers could not change their drug labels to add warnings because FDA regulations prohibit them from “making a unilateral labeling change.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed. In Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court held that claims against a manufacturer of a brand-name prescription drug for failure to warn adequately of the drug’s dangers were not preempted by federal law.; in PLIVA v. Mensing, the Court held that such failure-to-warn claims against manufacturers of generic drugs are preempted. The Court cited the different regulatory requirements and processes for approving and labeling prescription drugs. Depo-T “does not fit neatly into the colloquial dichotomy between brand-name and generic drugs” so the Seventh Circuit focused on whether the FDA approved public sale of its drugs through the “new drug application” or through the “abbreviated new drug application” (ANDA) and stated that the FDA-approved label defines an ANDA holder’s duty of sameness and the lines of federal preemption. View "Guilbeau v. Pfizer Inc." on Justia Law

E.F., a motor carrier licensed in Indiana to transport beer, wine, and liquor, entered into talks with Indiana Wholesale, a liquor and wine wholesaler, to deliver its wares. Twice the parties sought approval from the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission. Indiana’s prohibited-interest laws require strict separation of beer and liquor wholesaling. The Commission was concerned that E.F shares the same ownership and management as Monarch. a licensed beer and wine wholesaler, so E.F. might be deemed to hold an interest in Monarch’s wholesaling permit, which might block its venture with Indiana Wholesale. The Commission never definitively ruled on the proposal. Because of the issue, E.F. and Indiana Wholesale broke off their plan. E.F. sought declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, arguing that enforcement of Indiana’s prohibited-interest statutes is preempted by federal law. The district court dismissed the claim as unripe based on the aborted business relationship and regulatory uncertainty. In separate litigation, while an appeal was pending, the Indiana Supreme Court held that, given their shared ownership and management, E.F. would hold an interest in Monarch’s beer wholesaling permit under Indiana’s prohibited-interest laws. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the state ruling and the standing threat of prosecution were enough to remove any ripeness barrier. E.F. need not violate the law and expose itself to punishment to raise its preemption claim. View "E.F. Transit, Inc. v. Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission" on Justia Law

In November 2005, Lee was admitted to the U.S. as a nonimmigrant student's spouse. In March 2006, the Temple sought a nonimmigrant religious worker (R-1) visa for Lee. That petition remained pending in USCIS’s California Service Center (CSC) for almost four years. In October 2009, CSC indicated that USCIS intended to approve the petition and retroactively amend Lee’s status, to give her lawful status June 2006-May 2009 and that the Temple could apply for an extension for the remaining eligibility period, through May 2011. CSC’s approval notice stated that the R‐1 visa was valid through May 2009. CSC later approved an extension, covering May 2010-October 2011, leaving a gap in Lee’s lawful status. A November 2010 I‐360 petition, seeking classification as a special immigrant religious worker, stated that Lee had worked for the Temple since October 2009. CSC denied the application because Lee had worked when she did not have a valid visa. In June 2013, CSC agreed to eliminate the gap; CSC approved the I‐360 petition. In December 2013, Lee sought to adjust her status to lawful permanent resident. The Nebraska Service Center denied Lee’s application, noting a status violation. USCIS indicated its intent to revoke the I‐360 petition for failure to establish that Lee had worked continuously in a qualifying occupation for two years immediately preceding the application. The Temple responded that CSC had unreasonably delayed the initial application. USCIS considered that an admission and revoked the I‐360. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of a petition for judicial review. The revocation at issue is the type of discretionary action that 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars from judicial review. View "Bultasa Buddhist Temple of Chicago v. Nielsen" on Justia Law

Nelson, Schultz, and Rodgers formed an LLC to develop a mixed‐use luxury skyscraper on Chicago’s Magnificent Mile. The LLC’s operating agreement provided that development fees would be divided among the LLC’s managers “as they mutually agree” and that a manager of the LLC could be removed for cause by a majority vote of its owners. In 2005, Rodgers and Schultz voted to remove Nelson, allegedly causing him a loss of $1.13 million on the Ritz‐Carlton Residences. Nelson sued for breach of contract and torts. During discovery Schultz and Rodgers asked Nelson to produce bank statements and tax returns, which, they said, they needed to defend against his claims. After Nelson refused, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to compel their production and warned Nelson, twice, that it would dismiss the case if he did not produce the documents or provide an affidavit documenting a diligent search for them. Nelson did neither. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the case for want of prosecution, rejecting an argument that the district judge erred by not assessing whether his misconduct justified dismissing the case. The judge sufficiently evaluated the matter and did not abuse his discretion by dismissing the suit after multiple warnings. View "Nelson v. Schultz" on Justia Law

In 2007, Fendon borrowed money from Bank of America, secured by a home mortgage. A borrower may rescind such a transaction for any reason within three days and for some reasons within three years, 15 U.S.C. 1635. Fendon alleges that he notified BOA on August 15, 2008; April 16, 2009; and June 17, 2010, that he was rescinding the loan, and that BOA ignored the first two notices and rejected the third. In 2011, BOA filed a foreclosure action. In 2016, a state court entered a final judgment confirming the foreclosure sale. Fendon filed suit under the Truth in Lending Act after the sale. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal. Federal district courts lack authority to revise the judgments of state courts. Even damages relief, which would not disturb the state judgment, is untimely under the Act. If Fendon had filed suit before the foreclosure action, he might have had a strong argument that rescission could be enforced at any time but he did not. After BOA ignored his notices of rescission, he ignored BOA. By 2016, when he filed suit, the only possible relief was damages. BOA did not say or do anything after September 2008 that established either equitable tolling or estoppel. View "Fendon v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

In 2007, Kaufman filed a class‐action lawsuit based on Amex’s sale of prepaid gift cards. The packaging declared the cards were “good all over.” Kaufman alleged that these cards were not worth their stated value and were not “good all over” because merchants were ill‐equipped to process “split‐tender” transactions when a holder attempted to purchase an item that cost more than the value remaining on his card. After 12 months Amex automatically charged a “monthly service fee” against card balances. Kaufman alleged Amex designed the program to make it difficult to exhaust the cards' balances. Following the denial of Amex’s motion to compel arbitration, settlement negotiations, and the entry of intervenors, the court certified the class for settlement purposes but denied approval of a settlement, citing the inadequacy of the proposed notice. Response to notices of a second proposed settlement was “abysmal.” A supplemental notice program provided notice to 70% of the class; the court again denied approval. After another round of notice, the court granted final approval in 2016, noting the small rate of opt‐outs and objectors. The court awarded $1,000,000 in fees and $40,000 in expenses to the Plaintiffs’ counsel, $250,000 to additional class counsel, and $700,000 in fees to intervenors' counsel: attorneys would receive $1,950,000. The court concluded the total value of the claims was $9.6 million, that, considering the number of claims and the value of supplemental programs, the total benefit to the class was $1.8 million, and that recovering $9.6 million was unlikely. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the court did not abuse its discretion, despite the settlement’s “issues.” View "Goodman v. American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc." on Justia Law

After losing his job at Mutual Bank, Conner filed a qui tam action claiming that the defendants, primarily directors or officers of the bank, had defrauded the government in violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729–3733. The United States declined to take over the action, which Conner eventually settled. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation filed its own lawsuit against many of the same defendants. That case also settled. Conner claimed to be entitled to a share of the FDIC’s settlement proceeds and tried, unsuccessfully, to intervene in the FDIC’s case. He then filed a motion in his own suit action demanding part of the FDIC’s recovery. The district court denied that request on the ground that, because Conner’s attempt to intervene in the FDIC’s case was rejected, he is barred from litigating in this suit the question whether he has a cognizable interest in the settlement proceeds. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that claim preclusion barred Conner’s recovery from the FDIC. View "Conner v. Mahajan" on Justia Law

May, an Illinois prisoner, filed a pro se suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that prison physicians failed to provide adequate medical care for his non-Hodgkins lymphoma. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants on February 11, 2015. A separate judgment was never entered on the docket, so May had 180 days to file a notice of appeal (150 days until the judgment was deemed entered plus 30 days) to file a timely appeal by August 10. A document from May, mailed on September 5, 2015, requested an update on his “appeal,” claiming that he had mailed a notice of appeal on February 18. He attached copies of the purported notice, his inmate Legal Mail Card, a request that the clerk transmit the record on appeal, and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On October 20, the district court docketed a second notice of appeal from May, dated February 20. The defendants argued that May was litigating several cases and that May’s evidence did not substantiate his assertions. The Seventh Circuit remanded, concluding that it lacked sufficient information to resolve whether the prison mailbox rule applied. The Mail Card does not describe the item mailed and on February 23 the district court docketed an unrelated submission from May in another case. Resolution of this matter will involve issues of credibility. View "May v. Mahone" on Justia Law