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

FFRF, a Wisconsin-based organization of atheists and agnostics, gives its co-presidents housing allowances. They paid income tax on that portion of their salaries. Neither sought to exclude this income on their tax returns and neither has claimed a refund. FFRF and the co-presidents challenged the parsonage exemption, 26 U.S.C. 107, which allows a minister to receive tax-free housing from his church, whether by giving the minister access to a church-owned residence or by giving the minister an allowance to obtain housing. Plaintiffs conceded that they lacked standing to challenge section 107(1), covering in-kind housing, but argued that they had standing to challenge section 107(2), which applies to rental allowances. The district court agreed and held that the subsection is an unconstitutional establishment of religion under the First Amendment. The Seventh Circuit vacated with instructions to dismiss. A person suffers no judicially cognizable injury merely because others receive a tax benefit that is conditioned on allegedly unconstitutional criteria, even if that person is otherwise “similarly situated” to those who receive the benefit. Only a person that has been denied such a benefit can be deemed to have suffered a cognizable injury. The plaintiffs were not denied the parsonage exemption. View "Freedom From Religion Found., Inc. v. Lew" on Justia Law

Doe settled his sexual abuse claims against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee for $80,000 after participating in a voluntary mediation program. He later filed a claim against the Archdiocese in its bankruptcy proceedings for the same sexual abuse. Doe responded to the Archdiocese’s motion for summary judgment by contending that his settlement was fraudulently induced. The argument depends upon statements made during the mediation, but Wisconsin law prohibits the admission in judicial proceedings of nearly all communications made during mediation. Doe argued that an exception applies here because the later action is “distinct from the dispute whose settlement is attempted through mediation,” Wis. Stat. 904.085(4)(e). The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Archdiocese. Doe’s bankruptcy claim is not distinct from the dispute settled in mediation. The issue in both proceedings, which involved the same parties, is the Archdiocese’s responsibility for the sexual abuse Doe suffered. Doe sought damages in both the mediation and bankruptcy for the same sexual abuse; he did not seek separate or additional damages for the alleged fraudulent inducement. View "Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee" on Justia Law

In 2005 Greene and his wife had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and obtained a discharge from all their debts except federal student loan debt of $207,000. As part of the bankruptcy case they sought an order that the Department of Education cancel their debt on the ground that having to repay it would inflict undue hardship. The Greenes claimed that the statute of limitations prohibited collection of their loans, penalties and interest on the loans were caused by the DOE’s negligence, and the loans should be discharged as reparations for slavery and discrimination.” The Seventh Circuit rejected the undue hardship defense on the ground that “the Greenes initiated this case and the DOE has not counterclaimed or sought any judgment … there is no actual controversy.” In 2010 the Department began to garnish Greene’s wages and he sought an injunction. The DOE counterclaimed. The district court ordered Greene to pay the debt. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that DOE’s counterclaim was not barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, or failure to make a compulsory counterclaim in the bankruptcy proceeding.View "Greene v. U.S. Dep't of Educ." on Justia Law

Zuppardi slipped and fell on the floor of a Wal-Mart store. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart, finding that Wal-Mart had not caused the puddle and did not have actual or constructive notice of the puddle before Zuppardi’s fall, and denying Zuppardi’s motion to strike Wal-Mart’s reply for submitting a declaration in bad faith and violating a district court local rule. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The declaration was not a bad faith filing and the district court was within its discretion in deeming certain facts admitted and in determining that the local rule did not prevent Wal-Mart from replying in the manner it did.View "Zuppardi v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Kolbusz owns and operates the Illinois Center for Dermatology and Skin Cancer and was a participating Medicare provider from 1993 until December 2012, receiving payment directly from Medicare. In October 2012 he was indicted for Medicare fraud. As a consequence, the Department of Health and Human Services imposed fraud prevention procedures on the practice, including payment suspension, resulting in his ultimate withdrawal from the Medicare program. In 2013, Kolbusz filed suit against the Secretary of Health and Human Services and her contractors, asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question); the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395; and 28 U.S.C. 1361 (mandamus) to compel review of reimbursement claims he had submitted. The district court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Kolbusz’s failure to exhaust Medicare’s administrative appeals process precludes subject-matter jurisdiction of his mandamus action.View "Ctr for Dermatology & Skin Cancer, Ltd. v. Burwell" on Justia Law

In 2009 the doctor was hired by a small rural Wisconsin critical access hospital, as the director of its emergency room. Fired just months after being hired, he sued the hospital in under Title VII, claiming that the hospital had discriminated against him because of his Indian ethnicity. He alleged that a hospital employee said to him “you must be that Middle Eastern guy whom they hired as ER director” and accused him of taking her job, spat at him, and told him he belonged to a terrorist class of people and was a danger to the hospital. Hospital personnel complained to the plaintiff’s superior that he was incompetent—that he had poor patient skills, behaved unprofessionally, misdiagnosed patient ailments, and couldn’t get along with staff. His superior urged him to resign after he had worked only 12 shifts. After delays because the plaintiff initially acted pro se, and filings that were inadequate or nonresponsive, the judge dismissed the case for failure to respond to a motion for summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that “the pratfalls of a party’s lawyer are imputed to the party” and that plaintiff offered no excuse for missing the deadline.View "Sheikh v. Grant Reg'l Health Ctr." on Justia Law

Lodholtz, injured in 2011 while working at a Pulliam plant in Indiana, filed suit against Pulliam in state court. Pulliam asked Granite State, its insurer, to defend and indemnify. Granite State declined, believing that Pulliam was not liable because Lodholtz could claim workers’ compensation. Lodholtz argued that he was employed by another firm although he was injured on Pulliam’s premises and obtained default judgment for $4 million. Pulliam assigned him its rights against Granite State, which had unsuccessfully moved to intervene in Lodholtz’s suit, then sought a federal declaratory judgment that it had no duty to indemnify. Meanwhile, the Indiana court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that Granite State had sought leave to intervene under a reservation of rights. Indiana courts forbid the insurer to control the defense of the insured without acknowledging coverage. The Indiana Supreme Court declined review. The federal district court subsequently ruled that because Lodholtz’s employer had “leased” Lodholtz to Pulliam, he had been Pulliam’s employee, and that the Indiana judgment should be “disregarded.” The Seventh Circuit granted a petition under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) and dismissed Granite State’s suit. The U.S. Supreme Court is the only federal court with appellate authority over state courts, but would have had no authority in this case because it involved no issue of federal law.View "Lodholtz v. Granite State Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In 1987, two men were wrongfully convicted of arson and the brutal murders of two residents of Paris, Illinois and were sentenced to death. After years of pursuing post-conviction remedies, they were released in 2004 and 2008. They filed 42 U.S.C. 1983 and malicious prosecution claims against the city, police officers, and prosecutors. Defendants sought defense and indemnification from their insurers, which sought a declaratory judgment to clarify the duty to defend. In 2010, the district court granted two insurers summary judgment, but denied a motion by an excess insurer, which had issued policies that were in effect from 1985 to 1996--encompassing the wrongful investigations and prosecutions but not the exonerations. The district court held that malicious prosecution claims “occur” for insurance purposes when prosecution is instituted. The Seventh Circuit subsequently held that, under Illinois law, a claim for malicious prosecution “occurs” for insurance purposes on the date that the underlying conviction either is invalidated or terminated. In 2012, 33 months after the judgment, Defendants sought reconsideration. The district court denied the motion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Defendants were too late to use Rule 59(e), and “Rule 60(b) cannot be used to reopen the judgment in a civil case just because later authority shows that the judgment may have been incorrect.” View "Selective Ins. Co. v. City of Paris" on Justia Law

Richardson, apparently a lawyer who has been suspended several times, incurred educational debt in 1988 but did not pay. Indiana University, the creditor, sued in 1998. Richardson filed a bankruptcy petition days before trial but did not tell the court, the University, or its counsel. Nor did he appear for trial. The state judge entered a default judgment, which the law firm tried unsuccessfully to collect. After learning about the bankruptcy, the law firm stopped collection efforts. The bankruptcy ended in 2001, and the firm resumed collection efforts, relying on 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8), which makes most educational debts nondischargeable. Richardson filed a second bankruptcy in 2002 that lasted until 2007. Again the law firm ceased its efforts until after its end. The post-2007 efforts resulted in Richardson’s claim that the law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692f, by trying to enforce a judgment that had been entered in violation of the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay. The district court treated the suit as a collateral attack on the state court’s judgment and dismissed for want of jurisdiction, invoking the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Seventh Circuit held that the dismissal should be on the merits, noting that the state court judgment was vacated at the request of Indiana University.View "Richardson v. Koch Law Firm, P.C." on Justia Law

A federal district judge issued an injunction that blocks the State of Wisconsin from conducting a judicially supervised criminal investigation into whether certain persons have violated the state’s campaign-finance laws. The court acted despite 28 U.S.C. 2283, the Anti-Injunction Act, which provides: “A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” In 1972 the Supreme Court (Mitchum v. Foster) held that 42 U.S.C.1983 authorizes anti-suit injunctions if appropriate under principles of “equity, comity, and federalism.” The Seventh Circuit held that this case does not present a situation in which state proceedings may be displaced. The Anti-Injunction Act embodies a fundamental principle of federalism: state courts are free to conduct their own litigation, without ongoing supervision by federal judges, let alone threats by federal judges to hold state judges in contempt. The scope given to state litigation is especially great in the realm of criminal investigations and prosecutions. The court remanded the case with instructions to dismiss, leaving all further proceedings to the courts of Wisconsin.View "O'Keefe v. Chisholm" on Justia Law