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

In 2013 the Seventh Circuit held unconstitutional a provision of the Indiana Unclaimed Property Act, Ind. Code 32-34-1-1 that stated that “property” is “presumed abandoned if the owner or apparent owner has not communicated in writing with the holder concerning the property or has not otherwise given an indication of interest in the property” within a specified period varying according to the type of property. By filing a valid claim, the owner could reclaim the property up to 25 years after it was delivered to the attorney general, but was entitled only to principal and not to any interest. Several months later, the state amended the Act to provide for payment of interest. The district court dismissed the remand as moot and denied plaintiff attorneys’ fees. The Seventh Circuit reversed, opining that the judge was annoyed at the plaintiff because on remand she asked permission to file an amended complaint to convert the suit to a class action, based on intimations that the state would compensate only the plaintiff. She withdrew that request when the state amended the Act. The state’s concession did not deprive the plaintiff of her status as the prevailing party. The court also opined that the amount sought—$258,462.50 for 375.75 hours—is excessive. View "Cerajeski v. Zoeller" on Justia Law

Taylor’s brother died in an accident. Caiarelli, the decedent’s ex-spouse and guardian of their minor child, obtained a state court declaration that the child was entitled to assets distributed to Taylor ($1.4 million). The estate assigned the judgment to Caiarelli. Taylor sought a probate court declaration that the assignment was void. Before resolution, Taylor filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, triggering the automatic stay. Caiarelli initiated an adversary proceeding, objecting to discharge of the judgment. The bankruptcy court dismissed, finding that Caiarelli failed to establish standing. The judgment was discharged, and Taylor’s creditors enjoined from collecting, 11 U.S.C. 524(a)(2). Caiarelli returned to probate court, which ratified the assignment. Taylor claimed that Caiarelli and her attorneys violated the discharge and plan injunctions. The bankruptcy court entered a civil contempt order and issued a damages order and judgment for $165,662.36 in attorney’s fees. While appeal was pending, Taylor notified the district court that he reached a settlement with the legal malpractice insurance carrier for Caarelli’s attorneys. The attorneys denied that a full settlement had been reached. The bankruptcy court indcated that vacatur would be approved if the parties returned to the court, so the district court denied Taylor’s motion to dismiss but reversed the contempt order, damages order, and judgment, finding no violation of the statutory discharge or plan injunctions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the appeal was not moot. View "Taylor v. Caiarelli" on Justia Law

Bell established mutual funds, raised $2.5 billion, and invested in vehicles managed by Petters, who said that he was financing Costco’s electronics inventory. Instead he was running a Ponzi scheme, which collapsed in 2008. The scheme involved a claim that money lent to Petters entities was secured by Costco’s inventory and that repayment was ensured by a “lockbox” arrangement under which Costco would make payments into accounts that the Funds (not Petters) controlled. Petters insisted that the Funds not contact Costco, to avoid upsetting his favorable business relations. Bell and Petters went to prison for fraud. The Funds’ trustee in bankruptcy filed multiple suits. The district court dismissed a claim of legal malpractice. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Even if Bell was determined to do business with Petters, the Fund’s lawyers ould have explained how to structure the transactions in a less risky way, and if Petters refused to cooperate then Bell might have reconsidered lending the Funds’ money. The Trustee alleges that the firm did not offer any advice about how relative risks correspond to different legal devices, and its complaint states a legally recognized claim. Whether the law firm has a defense, and whether any neglect on its part caused injury, are subjects for the district court. View "Peterson v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP" on Justia Law

Choice Hotels sued SBQI, its managers, and investors, for breach of a franchise agreement. The defendants did not answer the complaint. The court entered a default. One defendant, Chawla, an Illinois attorney, had represented the others. Other defendants asked Chawla to find a new attorney. They claimed that they had been unaware that their signatures were on the franchise agreement and that the signatures are forgeries. Johnson agreed to try to vacate the default, negotiate a settlement, and defend against the demand for damages. Johnson filed an appearance and took some steps, but did not answer the complaint or move to vacate the default, engage in discovery concerning damages, or reply to a summary judgment motion on damages. In emails, Johnson insisted that he was trying to settle the litigation. He did not return phone calls. The court set damages at $430,286.75 and entered final judgment. A new attorney moved to set aside the judgment more than a year after its entry, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), which covers “any other reason that justifies relief” and requires “extraordinary circumstances.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The defendants must bear the consequences of their inaction. They were able to monitor the proceedings, but did not follow through. View "Choice Hotels Int'l Inc. v. Grover" on Justia Law

Moje, playing minor league hockey, lost an eye during a game, and sued Oakley, which made his visor, and the League. Instead of notifying its insurer, the League hired LoFaro. Oakley’s attorney called the League’s President, to ask why it had not answered the complaint. LoFaro claimed that an answer had been filed, but the docket did not reflect any filing. Moje moved for default. LoFaro did not respond, nor did he respond after the court entered the default and permitted Moje to prove damages. The court entered a final judgment of $800,000 against the League. After the League learned of collection efforts, it notified its insurer. A lawyer hired by the insurer unsuccessfully moved, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) to set aside the judgment within six months of its entry. Rule 60(b)(1), allows relief on account of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Abandoned clients who take reasonable steps to protect themselves can expect to have judgments reopened under Rule 60(b)(1), but the League is not in that category. Its remedy is against LoFaro. View "Moje v. Federal Hockey League LLC" 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

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 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

Humphrey sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act on behalf of her daughter Teniscia, alleging that medical malpractice during Teniscia’s 2008 birth left her permanently disabled. Teniscia’s father, Lee, participated in the litigation, but did not ask to be joined as a party. Humphrey and Lee are not married; Teniscia lives with Humphrey, but both are Teniscia’s legal custodians. The case was settled for $13 million, used to buy an annuity to provide care over the course of Teniscia’s life. Porter, who represents Lee, demanded a share of the 25% contingent fee that had been negotiated between Humphrey and her lawyer, who opposed this request, arguing that Lee was not a party and that Porter had not performed any of the legal work that led to the settlement. After the settlement Lee moved to file an amended complaint naming himself as a plaintiff. The district court denied Lee’s motion, stating that Lee not only had approved the settlement but also had not filed an administrative claim, as the FTCA requires. Lee then moved to intervene. The court denied that motion as untimely. Porter unsuccessfully sought fees notwithstanding Lee’s non-party status. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding that the district court could not have allowed intervention even on a timely motion. View "Lee v. United States" on Justia Law

Hess, an attorney, had worked on a number of medical-malpractice cases before his law firm, Kanoski terminated his employment. Many of these cases settled after Hess’s termination, and Hess was not compensated. He sued under his employment agreement and under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, adding claims of tortious interference, wrongful discharge, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. In 2011, the district court dismissed each of Hess’s claims. On remand the district court held that Hess was not entitled to compensation for the post-termination settlements. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, based on its interpretation of Hess’s employment contract provisions that Hess would receive bonus pay in the amount of 15 percent of all fees “generated over the base salary (or $5,000 per month),” that the bonus shall increase to 25 percent “on all fees received annually in excess of $750,000.00,” and that that, “where the Corporation retains clients upon Employees [sic] termination that Employee has no proprietary interest in fees to be earned since the Employee is to be fully compensated through his salary and/or bonus for all work done while an Employee of the Corporation.” View "Hess v. Kanoski & Associates" on Justia Law