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

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

This case involves a dozen gas stations in the Green Bay, Wisconsin area, who alleged that Costco Wholesale Corporation violated a Wisconsin law prohibiting the sale of gasoline below a statutorily defined cost. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent Costco from selling gasoline below that level and damages of over half a million dollars each. Costco argued that it lowered its prices to match a competitor's price, which the statute allows, and that the plaintiffs failed to establish the causal element of the statutory claim.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which sided with Costco and awarded it summary judgment. The plaintiffs appealed this decision, challenging both the summary judgment and an evidentiary ruling made earlier in the proceedings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that for 238 of the 256 days in question, Costco was immune from liability under the "meeting competition" exception in the Wisconsin law. For the remaining 18 days, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that they were injured or threatened with injury as a result of Costco's actions. The court also upheld the lower court's denial of the plaintiffs' request to supplement their expert report. View "Pit Row, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation" on Justia Law

The case involves three plaintiffs, Xingjian Sun, Xing Zhao, and Ao Wang, who sued their professor, Gary Gang Xu, for various allegations. Sun and Zhao, former students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, accused Xu of sexual and emotional abuse. Wang, a professor at Wesleyan University, posted online that Xu had a history of sexually assaulting students. In response, Xu allegedly posted negative comments about Wang and sent a letter to his employer. Xu counterclaimed, asserting a defamation claim against Sun and claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress against all three plaintiffs.The case was tried in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, where a jury found in favor of Xu on all issues and awarded him damages against Sun and Wang. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying their motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding Xu’s intentional infliction of emotional distress counterclaims. They also contended that the district court erred in denying their motion for a new trial, based on the court’s decision to admit evidence that Sun had a relationship with another professor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment in favor of Xu on his counterclaim against Wang, finding that no reasonable jury could find Wang's conduct extreme and outrageous under Illinois law. However, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of Xu on his counterclaim against Sun, concluding that a reasonable jury could find that Sun's conduct met the requirements for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. View "Sun v. Xu" on Justia Law

The case involves plaintiffs Pamela Antosh and Ned Lashley, who challenged the Village of Mount Pleasant's use of its eminent-domain power to acquire their property for road improvements associated with the private Foxconn development. In state court, the plaintiffs contested only the amount of compensation they were owed, not the propriety of the taking. However, when the state court ruled against them on an evidentiary issue two years into litigation, they decided to try their luck in federal court. In their federal complaint, they alleged for the first time that the taking was improper because it served a private purpose, not a public one.The state court proceedings were stayed pending the resolution of the federal suit. The Village filed a motion to dismiss the federal complaint, arguing that the federal court should abstain from exercising its jurisdiction over the proceeding. The district court agreed, dismissing the federal claims without prejudice, citing Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). The plaintiffs appealed this judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the district court was correct to refrain from exercising jurisdiction over the federal claims. The court concluded that the federal and state actions were parallel and that exceptional circumstances justified the district court's decision to abstain. The court noted that the plaintiffs' litigation strategy signaled a lack of respect for the state's ability to resolve the issues properly before its courts. The court also found that the plaintiffs' federal suit was a strategic attempt to bypass an unfavorable state-court ruling two years into that litigation. View "Antosh v. Village of Mount Pleasant" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a patient, Tommy Harris, who contracted bacterial sepsis due to repeated infections from his dialysis treatment at a clinic in Belleville, Illinois. Harris filed a malpractice lawsuit against the operators of the clinic and later included a claim against Durham Enterprises, Inc., the janitorial company responsible for cleaning the facility. The case primarily concerns Durham’s insurance coverage. Durham submitted the lawsuit to Ohio Security Insurance Company, its insurer, which denied coverage based on the insurance policy’s exclusion for injuries caused by fungi or bacteria. Harris and Durham then negotiated an agreement in which Durham promised not to mount a defense and Harris promised to seek recovery only from the insurer. The state trial judge granted a motion to sever Harris's claim against Durham and set it for a bench trial. The judge held a short, uncontested bench trial and entered judgment against Durham for more than $2 million.Ohio Security was not a party to the state court proceedings and the insurance policy was not in the record. However, the consent judgment includes findings on insurance issues, notably, that the insurer breached its duty to defend and is estopped from asserting any policy defenses. After the judgment became final, Harris filed an amended complaint purporting to add Ohio Security as a defendant. Ohio Security removed the action to federal court and sought a declaration of its coverage obligations. The district court held that the bacteria exclusion precludes coverage.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Harris and Durham jointly appealed, challenging the no-coverage ruling but also raising a belated challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine. The court found the jurisdictional argument meritless, as the Rooker–Feldman doctrine does not block federal jurisdiction over claims by nonparties to state-court judgments. The court also affirmed the district court's ruling that the policy’s bacteria exclusion precludes coverage for this loss. View "Mitchell v. Durham Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between GeLab Cosmetics LLC, a New Jersey-based online nail polish retailer, and Zhuhai Aobo Cosmetics, a China-based nail polish manufacturer. The founders of GeLab, Xingwang Chen and Shijian Li, are both Chinese citizens. The dispute centers around the ownership of GeLab and allegations of trade secret theft. According to Chen, he and Li founded GeLab with Chen owning 60% and Li 40%. They entered a joint venture with Zhuhai, which was supposed to invest in GeLab for an 80% ownership stake. However, Chen alleges that Zhuhai never sent the money and instead began using low-quality materials for GeLab's products, selling knock-off versions under its own brand, and fraudulently claiming majority ownership of GeLab. Zhuhai, on the other hand, asserts that Chen was its employee and that it owns 80% of GeLab.The dispute first began in China, where Li sued Chen for embezzlement. Chen then sued Li, Zhuhai, and Zhuhai's owners in New Jersey state court, alleging that he had a 60% controlling interest in GeLab and that Zhuhai had no ownership interest. The state defendants counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment that Zhuhai owns 80% of GeLab. GeLab then filed a second action in New Jersey against Li alone. The state court consolidated the two cases.While the New Jersey proceedings were ongoing, GeLab filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Zhuhai and its owners, alleging violations of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Illinois Trade Secrets Act. The defendants responded that Zhuhai owns GeLab and that it cannot steal trade secrets from itself. The district court stayed the federal case, citing the doctrine of Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, reasoning that judicial economy favors waiting for the New Jersey court to determine who owns the company. GeLab appealed the stay.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to stay the proceedings. The court found that the federal and state cases were parallel as they involved substantially the same parties litigating substantially the same issues. The court also found that exceptional circumstances warranted abstention, with at least seven factors supporting the district court's decision. These factors included the inconvenience of the federal forum, the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation, the order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent fora, the source of governing law, the adequacy of state-court action to protect the federal plaintiff's rights, the relative progress of state and federal proceedings, and the availability of concurrent jurisdiction. View "GeLab Cosmetics LLC v. Zhuhai Aobo Cosmetics Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over unpaid rent for a department store in an Illinois mall. The store was operated by CPS Partnership, which leased the retail space from WEC 98C-3 LLC. Saks Inc. guaranteed that it would pay the rent if CPS could not. However, when CPS stopped paying rent, Saks did not make any payments to WEC. This led to WEC defaulting on its mortgage, and the property was purchased by 4 Stratford Square Mall Holdings, LLC (“Stratford”) at a foreclosure auction. Initially, WEC sued Saks for damages. Later, Stratford intervened with its own claim for damages. The district court ruled only on Stratford’s claim for unpaid rent, finding that it was entitled to payment from Saks.The district court's decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Saks argued that Stratford lacked standing to sue, that the district court erred in certifying its judgment for immediate appeal, and that the district court erred in rejecting Saks’s affirmative defenses. The appellate court found that Stratford did have standing to sue Saks, and the district court properly certified its judgment for appeal. On the merits, the appellate court concluded that Saks could not mount any of its desired defenses as it had waived its right to present affirmative defenses to liability in the guaranty that it signed. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "WEC 98C-3 LLC v. SFA Holdings Inc." on Justia Law