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

The case involves Angela Flowers, who had a car loan with Kia Motors Finance. One morning, Flowers and her son were followed by a truck, which she suspected was an attempt by Kia to repossess her car due to late payments. Flowers sued Kia, alleging unlawful collection practices. However, she was unable to provide any evidence linking Kia to the truck that followed her and her son.Previously, the district court granted Kia summary judgment. Flowers had attempted to include an earlier repossession in her amended complaint, but the court found that she had unduly delayed this attempt. Furthermore, she could not provide any evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that Kia was involved in the incident with the truck.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Flowers argued that she did not need the district court's approval to file an amended complaint, as Kia had consented in writing to the amendment. However, the court found that Flowers had unduly delayed her attempt to amend the complaint and had not provided a sound excuse for this delay. Therefore, the court denied her motion to amend the complaint.The court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Kia. Flowers had failed to present any evidence linking Kia to the unidentified truck and driver. Her theory of liability was based on speculation and conjecture, which are insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no genuine dispute of material fact and that Kia was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Flowers v. Kia Motors Finance" on Justia Law

The case involves Nikkolai Anderson, a former restaurant host, who sued her employer, Mott Street, for sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation after her termination. Anderson's tenure at Mott Street was marked by sub-par performance and inappropriate behavior, including negative interactions with guests and non-compliance with restaurant rules. Mott Street received several negative customer reviews about a rude host, which were traced back to Anderson. After her termination, Anderson filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Illinois state law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of Mott Street. The court found Anderson's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress barred by the statute of limitations and concluded she had not raised triable issues of fact as to her Title VII allegations. Anderson appealed the district court’s decision as to her Title VII claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found no triable issue of fact on the third element of a hostile work environment claim—that the conduct was so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of employment. The court also found that Anderson could not identify an appropriate comparator nor raise a triable issue of fact as to Mott Street’s stated reasons for firing her, thus her sex discrimination claim could not proceed to trial. Lastly, the court found no causal connection between Anderson's alleged protected activity and her firing, nor could she produce evidence showing that Mott Street’s stated reason for firing her was pretextual. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on her retaliation claim. View "Anderson v. Mott Street" on Justia Law

The case involves Continental Indemnity Company (Continental) and its attempt to collect a default judgment against BII, Inc. (BII) from Starr Indemnity & Liability Company (Starr), BII's insurer. Continental had paid a workers' compensation claim for an employee injured at a construction site where BII was a subcontractor. Continental then sought reimbursement from BII, which had failed to maintain its own workers' compensation insurance. When BII did not pay, Continental secured a default judgment against BII and sought to collect from Starr under Illinois garnishment procedures.The district court in the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the garnishment proceeding against Starr, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the dispute over the scope of coverage under the Starr-BII insurance policy was too distinct from the underlying suit between Continental and BII. Continental appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the garnishment proceeding introduced new factual and legal issues, making it essentially a new lawsuit. The court explained that while federal courts have ancillary enforcement jurisdiction to consider proceedings related to an underlying suit, the subject of those proceedings must still be sufficiently related to the facts and legal issues of the original action. In this case, the court found that the garnishment proceeding fell outside the scope of ancillary enforcement jurisdiction. The court suggested that Continental could file a new civil action against Starr to litigate the dispute over the insurance policy's coverage. View "Continental Indemnity Company v. BII, Inc." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over the estate of Dr. Lester Frank Sumrall, who founded a church that grew into a global evangelical empire, LeSEA, Inc. After his death, his son and grandson, Lester Sumrall, claimed they should have inherited part of his estate, including copyrights to his works and his right of publicity. They alleged that LeSEA, now controlled by other family members, had wrongfully taken ownership of these assets.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The district court dismissed the claims brought by Lester Sumrall and the Lester Sumrall Family Trust against LeSEA and its affiliates, ruling in favor of LeSEA on all counts. The court found that the copyright claims were untimely and that LeSEA owned the copyright to a particular photograph, the "Traveler Photo," taken by Lester Sumrall. The court also dismissed various state law claims for damages under the doctrine of laches, citing inexcusable delay in asserting rights and prejudice to the adverse party.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the copyright claims were untimely and that LeSEA owned the copyright to the Traveler Photo. The court also upheld the application of laches to the state law claims, noting that laches is equally applicable in suits at law in Indiana. Finally, the court dismissed the claim for LeSEA's alleged use of Dr. Sumrall's right of publicity, as the Trust failed to plead the required half-ownership. View "Sumrall v. LeSEA, Inc." on Justia Law

AsymaDesign, LLC, a company that operated a virtual-reality ride in a shopping mall, entered into a lease with CBL & Associates Management, Inc. Following complaints about noise from the ride, CBL relocated it within the mall, as permitted by the lease. The new location proved unprofitable, leading AsymaDesign to stop paying rent, resulting in eviction and subsequent dissolution under the Illinois Limited Liability Company Act. Nearly four years later, George Asimah, the former owner of the LLC, filed a lawsuit against CBL under 42 U.S.C. §1981 and state contract law, alleging racial discrimination when CBL did not allow the LLC extra time to pay its rent.The district court dismissed the suit on the grounds that Asimah was not the real party in interest, as the lease was held by AsymaDesign, not Asimah personally. An amended complaint added AsymaDesign as an additional plaintiff, but this was also dismissed as untimely. The court ruled that although Illinois law allows a dissolved LLC a "reasonable time" to wind up its business, AsymaDesign had not begun to litigate until almost five years after its dissolution, exceeding the benchmark allowed by Illinois law.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, AsymaDesign filed a notice of appeal. However, the notice was signed only by George Asimah, who is not a lawyer and therefore cannot represent AsymaDesign or anyone other than himself. The court ruled that only a member of the court's bar (or a lawyer admitted pro hac vice) can represent another person or entity in litigation. AsymaDesign's sole argument was that anyone may represent an Illinois corporation in federal court, which the court dismissed as misguided. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. View "Asimah v. CBL & Associates Management, Inc." on Justia Law

The case revolves around Morgan Morales, who appealed against an administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision that she was not disabled and hence, not entitled to Social Security disability benefits. Morales claimed to suffer from several conditions, including bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, ADHD, and narcolepsy. After being treated at a mental health center and starting on prescription medications, Morales reported that her conditions were in remission. The ALJ, however, denied her application for benefits, finding that her mental impairments were mild and did not limit her ability to perform basic work activities, including her past job as a material handler.Morales challenged the ALJ's decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. She criticized the ALJ's decision about her functional capacity to work but failed to provide evidence compelling the conclusion that the adverse disability decision lacked substantial support in the record. The District Court upheld the ALJ's decision, stating that Morales had not carried her burden of proof and that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence.The case was then brought to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that Morales had misunderstood the burden she bore on appeal. The court noted that it was not enough to criticize the ALJ's decision; Morales needed to point to evidence compelling the conclusion that the adverse disability decision lacked substantial support in the record. The court also dismissed Morales's criticism of the District Court's decision, stating that the District Court had conducted an adequate review of the ALJ's determination and correctly applied the law. The court concluded that the ALJ's determination was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, and therefore, affirmed the decision. View "Morales v. O'Malley" on Justia Law

The case involves Maria and Jose Jimenez, who were involved in an auto accident with Stephen Kiefer. After the accident, the Jimenezes requested $100,000 from Kiefer's auto insurer, Travelers Commercial Insurance Company, to settle their claim against Kiefer. Travelers refused the offer, leading the Jimenezes to sue Kiefer in Illinois court. The Jimenezes and Kiefer entered into an agreement where Kiefer stipulated to a judgment against himself and assigned his rights and claims against Travelers to the Jimenezes. In exchange, the Jimenezes agreed not to execute the judgment against Kiefer personally. The Jimenezes then initiated a citation proceeding against Travelers, seeking to discover whether it held any of Kiefer’s assets.Travelers removed the action to federal court and filed for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for Travelers, finding that Kiefer and the Jimenezes (as his assignees) were entitled to nothing under the insurance policy and had no claim for breach of any duties Travelers owed Kiefer. The Jimenezes appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the citation proceeding was an independent, removable action. It also agreed with the district court that the Jimenezes, as Kiefer’s assignees, could not recover under the policy in light of the legally responsible provision. The court concluded that Travelers could hold Kiefer to the terms of the policy, and under a strict construction of those terms, Kiefer was not legally responsible for the judgment because the covenant not to execute precluded its enforcement. Therefore, the legally responsible provision bars the Jimenezes’ recovery as Kiefer’s assignees. View "Jimenez v. Travelers Commercial Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The case involves John Doe, a student who was expelled from Loyola University Chicago after the university concluded that he had engaged in non-consensual sexual activity with Jane Roe, another student. Doe sued the university under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and Illinois contract law, alleging that the university discriminates against men.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of Loyola. Doe appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appellate court, however, raised questions about the use of pseudonyms by the parties and the mootness of the case, given that Doe had already graduated from another university and the usual remedy of readmission was not applicable.The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the district court to address these issues. The court questioned whether compensatory damages were an option for Doe, and if not, the case may not be justiciable. The court also questioned the use of pseudonyms, stating that while anonymity may be common in Title IX suits, it must be justified in each case. The court noted that the public has a right to know who is using their courts and that a desire to keep embarrassing information secret does not justify anonymity. The court also raised concerns about whether revealing Doe's identity would indirectly reveal Roe's identity. The court concluded that these issues should be addressed by the district court. View "Doe v. Loyola University Chicago" on Justia Law

Edward Johnson filed for bankruptcy relief under Chapter 13 and made payments to the bankruptcy trustee, Marilyn O. Marshall, under his proposed repayment plan. However, the bankruptcy court never confirmed his plan due to his inability to address an outstanding loan and his domestic support obligations, and ultimately dismissed his case for unreasonable delay. Before returning Johnson's undisbursed payments, the trustee deducted a percentage fee as compensation. Johnson filed a motion requesting that the trustee disgorge her fee, which the bankruptcy court granted, reasoning that the trustee did not have statutory authority to deduct her fee because Johnson's plan was not confirmed. The trustee appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court analyzed the statutory text and agreed with the Ninth and Tenth Circuits that the United States Bankruptcy Code requires the Chapter 13 trustee to return her fee when the debtor's plan is not confirmed. The court found that neither of the two exceptions in § 1326(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code applied to the trustee's fee. The court also rejected the trustee's argument that § 1326(b) authorized her to keep her fee when making pre-confirmation adequate protection payments to creditors, as this provision only addresses payments made after a plan has been confirmed. The court further found that the trustee had no right to keep her fee under 28 U.S.C. § 586(e)(2), which only addresses the source of funds that may be accessed to pay standing trustee fees.The court concluded that the Chapter 13 trustee must return her fee when the debtor's plan is not confirmed, affirming the decision of the bankruptcy court. View "Marshall v. Johnson" on Justia Law

A German citizen, Asli Baz, filed a suit under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) to compel Anthony Patterson, a U.S. citizen, to return their six-year-old son, A.P., from Illinois to Germany. The couple had previously lived together in Chicago, but after their relationship ended, they continued to cohabit and share custody of their son. Baz later moved to Germany with A.P., with Patterson's consent. However, Patterson later took A.P. from his school in Germany and brought him back to the U.S., refusing to return him to Germany.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that A.P.’s habitual residence at the time he was retained was in Germany, where he had lived with Baz for over a year, and that the retention in Illinois violated Baz’s rights of custody under German law. It thus granted Baz’s petition and ordered the child’s return. Patterson appealed, challenging both the jurisdiction of the district court and its rulings on the merits of the petition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court rejected Patterson's argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction due to a provision in the Illinois Allocation Judgment, which stated that the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois had exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The court also found that the district court did not err in determining that A.P.'s habitual residence was Germany, and that Baz was exercising her rights of custody at the time of the retention. The court emphasized that its decision did not touch on any matters of custody, which should be resolved by the courts of the child's habitual residence. View "Baz v. Patterson" on Justia Law