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

Gamesa contracted with Minnesota-based Outland Renewable Energy to provide maintenance for Gamesa wind turbines. Iberdrola operated Gamesa-made turbines at the Cayuga Wind Farm in Illinois. While servicing a Cayuga urbine, Outland employee McCoy was electrocuted when the turbine unexpectedly reenergized. McCoy filed a personal injury case in state court against Iberdro and Gamesa. The case was removed to federal court on diversity of citizenship grounds. Iberdro impleaded Outland to seek indemnification based on contract and the Illinois Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act. Outland raised 22 counterclaims: including indemnification; federal and state antitrust claims (Illinois, Minnesota, and Texas law); and other state law claims. Outland unsuccessfully sought a preliminary injunction against Gamesa’s allegedly unfair competitive practices. The district court dismissed all but one of Outland’s counterclaims. Only the indemnification claim survived. McCoy, Gamesa, and Outland settled. The district court accepted the settlement, protecting Outland and Gamesa from further contribution claims under the Illinois JTCA; all claims arising from the accident among those parties were dismissed. Only the original personal injury dispute between McCoy and Iberdrola remained, but the court had not issued a final judgment. About six months after the dismissal, Outland sought leave to amend, arguing for the first time that the substantive law of Minnesota should apply. The district court determined that Outland had waived that issue and denied leave to amend based on futility and undue delay. The proposed amended counterclaims arose from Gamesa’s 2011 attempt to acquire Outland. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Outland’s third-party counterclaims are not part of the original case, so Outland needed an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction to assert them in this lawsuit. The court characterized Outland’s arguments as “desperate.” View "McCoy v. Iberdrola Renewables, Inc." on Justia Law

Yang, a citizen of China, entered the U.S. in 1998, as a tourist. In 2000, he married a U.S. citizen, who filed an I-130 visa petition and application for adjustment of status on Yang’s behalf, but withdrew her petition in 2003. , Yang’s application was denied after an investigation led USCIS to conclude that his marriage was fraudulent. In 2007 he divorced. Yang then filed an application for asylum and associated relief based on his practice of Falun Gong. Although Falun Gong was not officially banned in China until 1999, in 1998 the police arrested Yang and placed him in a cell overnight. Yang continued practicing Falun Gong in the U.S. and believed that Chinese officials knew of his practice. In 2008, Yang married Li, who immediately filed an I-130 petition on his behalf. USCIS sent notice of intent to deny, because it believed that Yang’s prior marriage had been a sham. Li submitted rebuttal materials, but USCIS lost them and denied the petition for lack of support. The IJ denied a continuance pending adjudication of the I-130. Yang also sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He was unsuccessful. The Seventh Circuit remanded the BIA’s decision to uphold the IJ’s denial of a continuance pending adjudication of Yang’s I- 130. View "Yang v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2007 the McDonalds opened a J.P. Morgan Bank investment account and a brokerage account with its affiliate, J.P. Morgan Securities (JPMS). Different contracts governed the accounts. The Bank managed the money in the investment account, while the McDonalds directed the funds in their JPMS brokerage account. By the end of 2008, the McDonalds had lost $1.5 million from the Bank investment account. The money held in the JPMS account produced a profit. The McDonalds filed an arbitration demand, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, self-dealing, and other misrepresentation and mismanagement. They did not name the Bank, but named only JPMS and Bank employees who set up and oversaw the accounts. The McDonalds claimed that the employees ignored their stated investment goals by putting nearly all their money in an illiquid proprietary hedge fund. The claim charged JPMS (not the Bank) with vicarious liability for failing to supervise. JPMS is registered with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, as are the employees. FINRA is an industry self-regulatory organization, and under its rules JPMS and the employees were subject to arbitration at the McDonalds’ request, an obligation reiterated in the contract governing the JPMS account. The Bank is not a member of FINRA; the Bank’s contract did not provide for arbitration. The Bank sought to prevent arbitration. The district court dismissed, finding that the Bank lacked standing to block the arbitration to which it was not a party and that the two employees were indispensable parties. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The Bank has standing to sue because the arbitration would violate a forum-selection clause in its contract with the McDonalds. The McDonalds cannot avoid that clause by naming only an affiliate and the employees, who are not necessary parties.View "J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Dewitt’s eye problems began in 2007 during his first incarceration at an Indiana Department of Corrections facility. Dewitt submitted the first of many Requests for Healthcare to Corizon stating something was wrong with his bloodshot left eye. After attempts to receive treatment from IDOC providers, Dewitt was released on parole in 2008. A doctor determined that Dewitt had a form of glaucoma and advised that he undergo laser-eye surgery to prevent future attacks. He underwent a surgical procedure on his right eye. His left eye continued to have higher than normal intra-ocular pressure. Dewitt was again incarcerated in 2009 and filed another Request for Healthcare. After several more attempts to obtain care, in 2012, he underwent surgery to remove part of his left eye’s ciliary body. Dewitt filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 asserting deliberately indifference to his glaucoma condition. The district court denied three requests for appointed counsel, finding that Dewitt’s claims were not overly complex or meritorious. The district court ultimately entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Seventh Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motions for recruitment of counsel and that those denials affected Dewitt’s ability to develop and litigate his case. View "DeWitt v. Corizon, Inc." on Justia Law

A warrant was issued for Ball’s arrest based on an affidavit prepared and signed by Indianapolis detective Jones. Law enforcement had been investigating a drug trafficking gang, the Detroit Boys, and had obtained authority to monitor telephone “call centers” that took calls from customers and directed them to one of two drug distribution houses. According to the Jones affidavit, 13 of the intercepted calls either were placed by or made reference to “MamaToni.” Based in part on Jones’ and another detective’s familiarity with Ball’s voice, Ball was believed to be the person making or referenced in these calls. The affidavit also averred that Ball had been seen at the drug distribution houses. Ball was arrested by Jones and charged with narcotics possession. She posted bond. Prosecutors concluded that the wrong person had been arrested and charged. The state dismissed all charges. Ball filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1983. The district court dismissed claims against the state defendants and granted judgment on the pleadings to the municipal defendants, leaving only a Fourth Amendment claim against Jones. Ball then was allowed to amend her complaint to abandon remaining federal claim and assert only state-law claims against Jones. The court remanded the case to state court, where it had originated. Ball appealed the adverse rulings on her other claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.View "Ball v. City of Indianapolis" on Justia Law

In 1990, Carter went to Stegemiller’s home because Stegemiller had filed a small claims case against his mother. Carter asked to discuss the case, then forced his way into Stegemiller’s home, started to strangle her, and struck her in the head with a tire iron. Carter held Stegemiller down and removed her jewelry while Carter’s accomplice, Mitchell, raped her. Before she lost consciousness, Stegemiller saw the men taking a stereo speaker from her home and heard one say “[M]ake sure she’s dead … she can identify us.” The two removed the telephones and locked and barricaded the doors so that Stegemiller could not leave or seek help. Stegemiller survived, with serious injuries. Convicted of felony burglary, robbery, rape, and attempted murder, Carter was sentenced to 90 years. A month later, the Indiana Supreme Court held that “an instruction which purports to set forth the elements which must be proven in order to convict of the crime of attempted murder must inform the jury that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, with intent to kill the victim, engaged in conduct which was a substantial step toward such killing.” On direct appeal, Carter’s attorney failed to argue that the attempted murder jury instruction given at Carter’s trial constituted fundamental error. Carter lost his appeal. Rejecting a petition for post-conviction relief, the Indiana Supreme Court found that Carter did not suffer sufficient prejudice to warrant setting aside the verdict. The district court rejected a petition for federal habeas corpus relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Carter v. Butt" on Justia Law

Brandner, an orthopedic surgeon, belongs to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. He is no longer able to perform surgery, but does consultations and other medical endeavors that do not require fine motor control. He devotes most of his time to providing expert advice and testimony in litigation. The Academy concluded that Brandner violated its ethical standards by professing greater confidence in one case than the evidence warranted. The Academy decided to suspend him for one year. Brandner filed suit, contending that the Academy violated Illinois law and its own governing documents. The Academy deferred the suspension pending resolution of the litigation. The Academy is a private group, and Illinois law does not allow judicial review of a private group’s membership decisions unless membership is an “economic necessity” or affects “important economic interests.” The district court concluded that the suspension would devastate Brandner’s income, but that the Academy had followed its own rules. The court granted summary judgment for the Academy. The Seventh Circuit affirmed “Brandner has offered only hot air. … he has expressed his opinion with greater confidence than the evidence warrants. He has not established that a one-year suspension from the Academy would end his professional career.” View "Brandner v. Am. Acad.of Orthopaedic Surgeons" on Justia Law

Gibson, sued former manufacturers of white lead carbonate pigments, which were used, before the federal government banned them in the 1970s, in paints, including paints applied to residences. Gibson claimed negligence and strict liability, but cannot identify which manufacturer made the white lead carbonate pigment that injured him. He relied on the “risk contribution” theory of tort liability fashioned by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Thomas v. Mallet in 2005, under which plaintiffs are relieved of the traditional requirement to prove that a specific manufacturer caused the plaintiff’s injury. The district court held that risk-contribution theory violates the substantive component of the Due Process Clause and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting the broad deference that the Constitution grants to the development of state common law. The risk-contribution theory survives substantive due process scrutiny and the manufacturers’ other constitutional challenges. View "Gibson v. Am. Cyanamid Co." on Justia Law

Sobaleva, a citizen of Belarus, entered the U.S. on a valid student visa. She applied for asylum, contending that the Belarusian government persecuted her for her political opinion before she left and likely would do so again if she were to return. She also requested asylum for her husband, Potorac, a citizen of Moldova. An immigration judge denied Sobaleva’s application and ordered that she and Potorac be removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, stating that Sobaleva had not established either past persecution based on her political opinion or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Seventh Circuit remanded, finding two significant flaws in the decisions: the judge and the Board applied the wrong legal standard to conclude that Sobaleva was not persecuted in Belarus and misconstrued and disregarded important evidence. View "Sobaleva v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2008 Schane suffered a job-related injury while working for YRC. He drew workers’ compensation benefits until he returned to work in 2009. Schane was medically cleared for light-duty work only, and with no light work available, he resumed workers’ compensation in 2010. YRC and its employees, including Schane, participate in a multi-employer benefit trust fund and an “employee pension benefit plan” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 1002(2). Schane submitted a pension application in July 2009, after returning from his first stint on workers’ compensation, but left blank the line on indicating his last day of work because the plan does not permit participants to take a pension while they are receiving workers’ compensation. The following March, Schane told the plan that his last day of work would be October 31, 2010. He later delayed his last day by a year. In September 2011, he delayed again. On December 21, he wrote that he would retire at the end of the year and that his pension should therefore be effective on January 1, 2012. Schane and the plan could not agree on the date that he “retired” for purposes of calculating benefits: August 2009 or December 2011. The district court rejected Schane’s argument. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, noting the trustees’ flimsy defense of their interpretation on appeal. View "Schane v. Int'l Bh of Teamsters Union Local No. 710" on Justia Law