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

Maurice Salem was admitted pro hac vice in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in connection with some commercial litigation. Salem represented Trade Well International, a Pakistani company, which was suing United Central Bank for damages and the return of property that was left behind in a hotel that the Bank owned. Problems arose when Salem filed a Notice of Lien on behalf of his client; the Notice stated that there was a lien on the hotel and purported to provide notice of the litigation. The district court, concluding that the Notice was defective in several ways, held Salem in contempt of court, revoked his pro hac vice status, barred him from practicing in the Western District of Wisconsin for three years, and imposed a $500 fine. Salem appealed. On the merits, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that the district court’s orders should have been set aside: nothing Salem did warranted a finding of contempt, nor these sanctions. View "Salem v. United Central Bank" on Justia Law

National Retirement Fund sought to hold Mezz Lender and Oaktree Capital responsible for multiemployer pension fund withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, 29 U.S.C. 1381. Oaktree, through Mezz Lender, provided financing for the acquisition of a hotel by Chicago H&S. When H&S defaulted, it was taken into bankruptcy and the hotel was liquidated. NRF contends that the sale of the hotel triggered withdrawal liability on the part of H&S and any other “trade or business” under common control with it, including bot Oaktree and Mezz Lender. Oaktree and Mezz Lender, argued that the claim of withdrawal liability was barred by the bankruptcy reorganization plan pursuant to which the hotel was sold. On motions for summary judgment, the court stated that having decided that Oaktree and Mezz were not jointly and severally liable for H&S’s withdrawal liability, "the Court need not address the parties’ arguments as to [the Oaktree parties’] motion" concerning the bankruptcy. The Seventh Circuit vacated. The court decided in the absence of a cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue that it found to be dispositive, and without first giving the unsuccessful movant notice that it was entertaining the possibility of entering summary judgment against it or the opportunity to respond. View "Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v. National Retirement Fund" on Justia Law

Jones, a United Airlines flight attendant, was fired for misconduct. He sued his union, claiming that because of racial animus and his complaints about discrimination, the union had not fairly represented him, 42 U.S.C. 1981, 2000e-2(c), 2000e-3(a). As part of a settlement, the union agreed to challenge his discharge before the System Board of Adjustment. Jones agreed to dismiss his lawsuit with prejudice. The settlement does not provide for continuing federal court jurisdiction. Both signed a stipulation of dismissal (FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)). Two weeks later, Jones filed his first pro se submission: a two-sentence request to discharge Jones’s recruited lawyer and to return his suit to the district judge. Next, he asked that his lawsuit be reinstated and that a “default judgment” be entered against the union, although it was pursuing a grievance, as promised. Finally, Jones submitted his “motion to establish court’s jurisdiction.” The magistrate to whom the case had previously been assigned rejected all three for lack of jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit dismissed, reasoning that Jones’s submission was not part of the litigation covered by the parties’ consents, so the magistrate did not have authority to issue a dispositive ruling. Jones was bringing a new lawsuit. The magistrate could dispose of that new action only if assigned by a district judge and the parties furnished new consents. View "Jones v. Asso'n of Flight Attendants-CWA" on Justia Law

For 13 years Sklyarsky worked as a custodian at a Chicago office building, through different employers. In 2010, new supervisors began disciplining Sklyarsky. He complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Illinois Department of Human Rights that the company was treating him unfairly because of his Ukrainian national origin. Sklyarsky was fired in 2013, and after exhausting administrative remedies, filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1981, 2000e-2, e-3, e-5(f).1 During discovery Sklyarsky, an experienced pro se litigant, concluded that the building’s management company had been involved in the discrimination and sought leave to join it as a defendant. Judge Kocoras denied that motion, telling Sklyarsky that Means-Knaus had “nothing to do with the employment contract” and that, if he wanted to sue MeansKnaus, he would have to file a separate action. Sklyarsky did that. Judge Gottschall, assigned to the new suit against Means-Knaus, screened Sklyarsky’s pro se complaint and dismissed it sua sponte, 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B), finding that the doctrine of claim preclusion foreclosed a separate suit. Judge Kocoras refused to reconsider and entered summary judgment in favor of the employer. In consolidated appeals, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that any procedural missteps were harmless. View "Sklyarsky v. Harvard Maint., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff won a judgment in a breach of contract claim. The court’s memorandum opinion and order, held the defendants liable for “$113,500 plus interest accruing and attorneys’ fees.” When entering the judgment on the docket, the court checked the box indicating that no prejudgment interest would be awarded. Plaintiff moved to “quantify interest based on the memorandum opinion and order.” The defendants filed appeals. Because the district court had not quantified prejudgment interest, the Seventh Circuit ordered the parties to file memoranda explaining why the appeals should not be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the district court addressed the motion to quantify, which it construed as a motion to correct the judgment. Explaining that it had checked the wrong box on the judgment, the court directed plaintiff to move the Seventh Circuit for leave to correct the clerical mistake. Plaintiff filed the motion. The Seventh Circuit held that there is no final judgment to appeal. The award of prejudgment interest is part of a plaintiff’s damages and the district court must quantify damages before a judgment can be final. Even if the clerical mistake were corrected, the judgment would not quantify prejudgment interest and the district court did not address how it would quantify the award. View "Dual-Temp of Ill., Inc. v. Hench Consulting, Inc." on Justia Law

Holocaust survivors and the heirs of victims sued the Hungarian national railway, the national bank, and private banks for the roles they played in the World War II genocide against Hungarian Jews. In 2012 appeals, the Seventh Circuit held that the national railway and national bank, instrumentalities of the government, could be sued in a U.S. federal court if the plaintiffs could demonstrate that they had exhausted any available Hungarian remedies or had a legally compelling reason for failure to do so. The court mandated dismissal of claims against two private banks for lack of personal jurisdiction, but denied requests by Erste Bank to review denial of its motion to dismiss. On remand, the district court dismissed the claims against the national defendants for failure to prove exhaustion of Hungarian remedies and dismissed Erste Bank on forum non conveniens grounds. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissals, without prejudice. While international law does not require exhaustion of domestic remedies before plaintiffs can say that international law was violated, principles of international comity require that these plaintiffs attempt to exhaust domestic remedies before foreign courts can provide remedies. If plaintiffs find that attempts to pursue remedies in Hungary are frustrated unreasonably or arbitrarily, a U.S. court could hear the claims. View "Albert v. Magyar Nemzeti Bank" on Justia Law

Visteon, a worldwide manufacturer headquartered in Michigan, sued National Union, from which it had purchased liability insurance between 2000 and 2002. The policy excluded liability resulting from pollution caused by Visteon, except liability arising from a “Completed Operations Hazard.” In 2001, the toxic solvent TCE that was used to clean machinery in Visteon’s Connersville, Indiana plant was discovered to have leaked into the soil and groundwater. Neighboring landowners sued Visteon. National Union has refused to indemnify or defend. Indiana does not enforce standard pollution-exclusion clauses. Michigan law does enforce the more general kind of pollution-exclusion clause found in the policy. The district court ruled that Michigan law governed and held that Visteon was not entitled to coverage under the Completed Operations Hazard clause. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The risk materialized in Indiana, but that could not have been foreseen. The Indiana victims were compensated by Visteon, and it is unclear what benefit the state would have derived from reimbursement of Visteon’s costs by National Union.” The court rejected Visteon’s argument that its “work” was “completed” each time a contract to supply products made at the plant was performed and concluded that the exception did not apply. View "Visteon Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh" on Justia Law

The owners of multifamily housing rental projects in Wisconsin that are assisted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development program under Section 8 of the Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 1437f sued the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA), alleging WHEDA breached certain Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contracts by failing to approve annual rent increases,as required by federal law, and by requiring the owners to submit rent comparability studies as a prerequisite to receiving rent increases. WHEDA filed a Third-Party Complaint against HUD, alleging that, if WHEDA is found to have breached the HAP contracts, then those breaches resulted from WHEDA following congressional and HUD directives. The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting that the district court’s order was entered without the benefit of the parties’ full briefing on jurisdiction. While state law may create the breach-of-contract causes of action, the only disputed issues involve the proper interpretation of Section 8 and HUD’s implementing guidance. The issues are “capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” View "Wis. Hous. & Econ. Dev. Auth. v. Castro" on Justia Law

Garcia and Salgado, drivers for Latino Express, solicited signatures from other drivers to certify the Union. Owners and managers began efforts to undermine the Union activity and the two were eventually terminated. They filed claims with the NLRB alleging that Latino Express had violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and (3) by interfering with their organizing activities. The NLRB Regional Director sought interim injunctive relief pending the Board’s remedial action under section 10(j), alleging that Latino created the impression that the union or other concerted activities were under surveillance; granted improved benefits in response to the organizing campaign; instructed employees not to speak with each other about the company’s accident reimbursement policy; announced that union representation was never going to happen; interrogated employees about union activity and threatened discharge; and solicited employee grievances. The Director requested interim reinstatement for Garcia and Salgado. The district court granted relief as requested. Latino sought an extension of time, claiming that its employees had withdrawn their recognition of the union and that a decertification petition was forthcoming. The court found Latino in civil contempt. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the status of the union was irrelevant to compliance. View "Ohr v. Latino Express, Inc." on Justia Law

Swanigan was arrested and jailed for more than 50 hours by Chicago police officers who mistakenly thought he was a serial bank robber. Following his release, Swanigan sued individual officers and the city alleging constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state-law claims. Swanigan’s “Monell” policy-or-practice claim against the city became a separate lawsuit, which was stayed while the suit against the individual officers proceeded. A jury awarded $60,000 in damages. Swanigan moved to lift the stay and to amend his complaint in light of the jury’s verdict. The judge interpreted the motion as a waiver of all but two of Swanigan’s Monell theories and held that the remaining claims were not justiciable, based on the city’s promise to indemnify its officers and to pay nominal damages of $1 for any Monell liability. The judge dismissed the Monell suit. The Seventh Circuit remanded: the judge wrongly assumed that Swanigan was waiving all but two Monell theories and, under FRCP15(a)(1)(B), Swanigan was entitled to amend his complaint within 21 days of a responsive pleading, which would have been the next step after the stay was lifted. A sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim, a merits adjudication was improper. View "Swanigan v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law