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

Gonzalez-Koeneke worked, for 12 years, as a Rockford School District bus driver. She experienced problems with children on her bus and filed incident reports with Sharp and, later, went to West, the terminal manager. She was told that she did not know how to discipline the children and was later suspended for two days for failing to perform a proper pre-trip inspection of her bus. Gonzalez-Koeneke claims that her suspension was actually retaliation for having gone to West. Her union steward told her that Wilson (a District official) wanted her to quit, but Wilson issued a “Removal Form” that same day, resulting in suspension of her bus-driver permit for three years. Gonzalez-Koeneke was terminated based on her suspended permit. She filed suit pro se, alleging violation of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1981, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court dismissed with prejudice, noting its standing order that a dismissal is with prejudice unless a party requests an opportunity to amend in its response. Gonzalez-Koeneke moved to set aside the judgment and to amend her complaint. The district court denied the motion, stating that she had not explained how she would amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in the order. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Gonzalez-Koeneke v. West" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs (a class of 1,593) alleged that Visteon failed to deliver timely notice to ex-employees, offering them an opportunity to continue health insurance at their own expense, under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). An employer has 44 days after the end of a person’s employment to provide notice and essential details, 29 U.S.C. 1166(a)(2). The court found that Visteon had provided untimely notice to 741 former employees, and that the notice averaged 376 days late for those persons. The court awarded $2,500 to each class member who had received untimely notice (a total of about $1.85 million), a sum that does not depend on how long the delay was for any given person. While the suit was pending, Visteon was reorganized in bankruptcy. The plan provides that debts of this kind will be paid 50¢ on the dollar, so each of the 741 will receive $1,250. The court also ordered Visteon to pay class counsel $302,780 as attorneys’ fees plus costs of about $11,000. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees, but otherwise dismissed plaintiffs’ challenge to the penalty as untimely, having been filed several months after the district court’s delayed entry of judgment. View "Pierce v. Visteon Corp." on Justia Law

In 2009, unknown assailants shot and killed Marty, who had sporadically provided intelligence to narcotics officers in Belvidere, Illinois, since 2006. Marty’s mother, Flint, filed 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims. The constitutional claims boil down to allegations that Marty was targeted and killed in retribution for his actions as a police informant, and that the defendants are liable for failing to protect him. The day defendants moved for summary judgment, about a month after discovery closed, Flint moved to reopen discovery and for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate allegations that Officer Dammon and Berry (Marty’s primary police contacts) lied throughout discovery. The judge denied both motions. Flint’s response to the summary judgment motion did not comport with Local Rule 56.1, which guides how parties must marshal evidence at the summary judgment stage. Applying that rule, the district court deemed admitted most of defendants’ factual assertions, ignored additional facts raised in Flint’s response briefing, and granted summary judgment against her. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The judge acted within his discretion to deny Flint’s tardy motions and Flint’s procedural gaffe left an evidentiary record insufficient to survive summary judgment. View "Flint v. City of Belvidere" on Justia Law

Intercon, which provides electronic recycling services, engaged BAN to evaluate its business for certification as environmentally friendly. BAN concluded that Intercon shipped hazardous waste to companies in China that use disposal methods that violate policy in Illinois, where Intercon operates and were inconsistent with Intercon’s public representations. BAN reported its conclusion to state and federal agencies. Intercon sued for defamation. BAN asserted an Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) defense. The district court declined to dismiss, the remedy under the state Anti-SLAPP law, reasoning that a special motion to strike was inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Washington State Anti-SLAPP law cited by BAN would require the judge to resolve jury questions. View "Intercon Solutions, Inc. v. Puckett" on Justia Law

In 2009, CE filed a class action suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, against King. King had commercial general liability and umbrella policies from three insurance companies, but all three disclaimed any obligation to defend or indemnify, based on provisions in the policies that appeared to exempt liability under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act from coverage. The district court certified the class. On remand, CE and King agreed to settle the case for $20 million, the limit of the insurance policies. Their agreement, approved by the district court, provided that only one percent of the judgment ($200,000) could be executed against King. Upon learning of the proposed settlement, the insurers sought a state court declaratory judgment. A state court ruled that the insurance policies do not cover liability under the Act, but CE is appealing that decision. After the settlement agreement in the federal case, but before its approval, the insurers moved to intervene under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a), (b), hoping to delay approval of the settlement until there was a state-court determination. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of the motion to intervene as untimely. View "Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. King Supply Co., LLC" on Justia Law

Taxpayers petitioned the Tax Court for a redetermination of $18,030 in deficiencies and penalties for tax years 2009 through 2011. On the trial date, the IRs Commissioner submitted a “Stipulation of Settled Issues” signed by the parties. The document states that it “reflects” the parties’ “agreement as to the disposition of adjustments,” but contained no mention of agreement concerning the fact or amount of a deficiency for any of the relevant tax years. At the Commissioner’s request, the Tax Court granted the parties 30 days to file “decision documents” in lieu of trial. The Commissioner calculated a total deficiency of $12,252 and a penalty of $0. When the couple refused to agree to this amount, the Commissioner asked the Tax Court to enter a decision adopting the Commissioner’s figures. The taxpayers sought more time to produce an agreement, but the Tax Court granted the Commissioner’s motion on the ground that “the parties’ computations for decision and proposed decisions consistent with their settlement agreement” were overdue. The Seventh Circuit vacated. In light of the parties’ disagreement over the taxpayers’ liability, the Tax Court erred by entering a judgment without holding a trial. View "Hussain v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

SGI sued Yogi’s, alleging trademark infringement. Attorney Harris filed trademark applications for Yogi’s. SGI served Harris with a subpoena, for his deposition. The deposition did not take place. The court ordered Harris to be deposed at his office at noon on October 29. SGI sent Harris, who did not attend the hearing, a copy of the order by mail and facsimile on October 23. On October 29, SGI’s attorney, Park, arrived at the office. Harris was not there. The two spoke by phone. According to Park, Harris stated that he was aware of the order, but that it would take him at least an hour to arrive. Park told Harris that if he did not arrive by 1:00 p.m. it would be treated as a “no show.” The deposition did not occur. Harris faxed a letter stating his intention to comply and willingness to be deposed telephonically or by video. SGI did not respond or attempt to reschedule, but moved to hold Harris in contempt, seeking fees and expenses of $6,800. Harris filed an affidavit, explaining that during the week of October 22, he was in New York, and that he first became aware of the court order on October 29, when speaking with Park. On November 6, Harris sent Park a letter via email, facsimile, and certified mail, stating that he was available for deposition. On November 8, Harris called Park to reschedule. Park did not return the call; Harris sent another email. There was no response. On December 17, the court ordered SGA to take Harris’ deposition that same day. SGI complied. The court declared the motion for contempt and sanctions moot. SGI filed a renewed motion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed its denial. View "Sik Gaek, Inc. v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Illinois Business Brokers Act of 1995 requires brokers for the sale of businesses in the state to register. Brokerage agreements must be in writing. Promises to pay unregistered brokers for their services are unenforceable. Global Technology, apparently unaware of the statute, orally agreed with Satyam Computer Services (based in India) to act as a broker in the purchase of Bridge Strategy, an Illinois business. Global brokered the acquisition, but Satyam refused to pay. Global sued, seeking a 3% commission ($600,000). Satyam contended that Bridge had compensated Global for its services as an intermediary and that it had never promised any additional compensation. When the litigation was four years old, Satyam moved for summary judgment with a new argument: that Global is not registered under the Act. Global argued that the Act is an affirmative defense, which under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) had to appear in Satyam’s answer. Finding that Global had not suffered prejudice, the court excused Satyam’s delay and entered judgment in its favor. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Rule 8(c) does not provide a consequence for delay. District judges have authority to authorize a litigant to assert an affirmative defense despite its omission from the answer. View "Global Tech. & Trading, inc. v. Tech Mahindra Ltd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, once a standout high school basketball player, sued 942 U.S.C. 1983) Valley View Community School District, and the Illinois High School Association, raising claims of First Amendment retaliation, equal protection, substantive due process, unconstitutional policy, section 1983 conspiracy to violate constitutional rights, and indemnification under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act. He alleged that the District and IHSA singled him out for residency investigations, which rendered him ineligible to participate in basketball for 10 days, because his mother complained to the District. The district judge determined that plaintiff failed to comply with local Rule 56.1 and deemed admitted all of the defendants’ properly supported facts and disregarded plaintiff’s additional facts that lacked evidentiary support. Rule 56.1(a)(3) requires a party moving for summary judgment to include with that motion “a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue and that entitle the moving party to a judgment as a matter of law,” organized by numbered paragraphs and referring to supporting materials that substantiate the asserted facts. The district judge entered summary judgment for the defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The defendants complied; plaintiff, in opposing summary judgment, was required to, but did not comply. View "Friend v. Valley View Cmty Unit Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

The City of Milwaukee is defending several lawsuits brought by scores of plaintiffs alleging that its police officers conducted unconstitutional stops and searches, including strip‐searches and body‐cavity searches. Judge Stadtmueller was assigned to preside over several cases. Milwaukee, asserting that some of the judge’s comments in opinions and conferences in the related cases raise questions about his impartiality, moved for recusal under 28 U.S.C. 455(a). The judge declined. Milwaukee sought a writ of mandamus. The Seventh Circuit denied the motion. The five challenged statements were made during the course of litigation; “opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep‐seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Judge Stadtmueller is presiding over several of these cases. It is not surprising that he might draw conclusions about the nature of the issue or problem. He is expected to look for and consider common threads and possible systemic problems to manage the cases effectively and decide them fairly. Even considering all the challenged statements together, nothing reasonably suggests deep-seated antagonism. View "City of Milwaukee v. Stadtmueller" on Justia Law