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

Peele worked for the Portage Police Department as a detective. In 2007 he supported Charnetzky’s Democratic primary campaign to become mayor. Charnetzky lost. Peele spoke to a local reporter and criticized Sheriff Lain for endorsing the opponent, apparently stating that Sheriff Lain “won’t get any support here.” The day after the comments were published, Peele was reassigned to the more deskbound position of “Station Duty Officer.” Peele sued, claiming that he was demoted and constructively discharged without due process; retaliation for his support of Charnetzky; and defamation. The defendants counterclaimed malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Seventh Circuit reversed with respect to retaliation, noting that the district court did not address conspiracy, immunity, or the city’s liability. View "Peele v. Burch" on Justia Law

After accumulating a fortune in the technology business, Patel became a hedge fund manager. He formed a fund, and Sitara to serve as the fund’s investment adviser, and named himself managing director of Sitara. His acquaintances purchased interests in the fund. After initial success, Patel invested $6.8 million, nearly all of the fund’s assets, in Freddie Mac common stock in 2008, after the beginning of the subprime mortgage crisis. The fund incurred devastating losses. Owners of limited partnership interests sued Patel and Sitara, claiming federal and state securities fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraudulent inducement. Their second amended complaint asserted only failure to register securities in violation of federal law, failure to register as an investment advisor under Illinois law, and breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1109(a). Plaintiffs sought to file a third amended complaint, based upon purported misrepresentations discovered while deposing Patel: an offering memorandum statement that Patel “intends to contribute no less than one hundred thousand dollars” and Patel’s oral statement that he was investing some of the $18 million from the sale of a former business at the inception of the fund. Patel did not invest any proceeds from the sale of his company at the inception. The district court denied the motion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The new claims suffered from deficiencies that rendered the proposed amendment futile. View "Shailja Gandhi Revocable Trust v. Sitara Capital Mgmt., LLC" on Justia Law

Bey was convicted of conspiring to possess heroin with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting distribution of heroin, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 846, based on his involvement in a heroin transaction in which the buyer was a government informant. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on an entrapment defense. Bey had abandoned that defense. Under the co-conspirator exclusion from the rule against hearsay, there was sufficient evidence of conspiracy to allow admission into evidence of out-of-court statements made by alleged co-conspirator. View "United States v. Bey" on Justia Law

Police saw Rabin carrying a holstered gun on his hip in public. He was handcuffed and detained for about 90 minutes while officers sought to confirm the validity of his carrying license. None of the detaining officers were familiar with Rabin’s unique license, carried primarily by private detectives and security officers. When it was confirmed that the license was legitimate, Rabin was released. Rabin sued the officers for unlawful arrest and excessive force. The district court denied the officers summary judgment of qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit reversed in part, finding the officers entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim, because even if they had known about the type of license, it would have been reasonable under clearly established law to detain Rabin while they verified its legitimacy. The length of Rabin’s detention was “unfortunate,” but was caused by the government’s failure to have an efficient system of license verification. One officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that unnecessary tightness of the handcuffs exacerbated Rabin’s preexisting medical conditions. Rabin only told that officer about his medical issues. View "Rabin v. Flynn" on Justia Law

The Wehrles were struck by drunk-driver Barth. Robert Wehrle’s injury claim exceeded $750,000 and his wife's claim exceeded $1.5 million. Barth’s auto insurance policy included a $100,000 per-person liability limit. Each recovered that amount from Barth’s insurer. The Wehrle’s own policy, issued by Cincinnati, included underinsured-motorist coverage, for up to $1 million. Cincinnati paid $800,000, reasoning that the Wehrles’ policy reduces its $1 million maximum payout “by all sums paid by anyone who is legally responsible,” and that the Wehrles had recovered $200,000 from Barth’s insurer. The Wehrles claimed that the $100,000 that they each received from the drunk-driver’s insurer should reduce their individual claims. The district court ruled in favor of the insurer. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the policy language unambiguously supported the insurer’s interpretation and was consistent with the gap-filling purpose of underinsured-motorist insurance. View "Wehrle v. Cincinnati Ins. Co." on Justia Law

ITT is a for-profit institution with more than 140 locations and offers post-secondary education. Leveski, who worked at the ITT campus, alleged, under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3730(b) that ITT knowingly submitted false claims to the Department of Education to receive funds from federal student financial assistance programs under the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1001. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the allegations had already been publicly disclosed and that Leveski was not the original source of the allegations. The court granted sanctions of $394,998.33 against Leveski's lawyers. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding the allegations that ITT paid illegal incentive compensation throughout Leveski’s employment as a recruiter and financial aid assistant, sufficiently distinct from prior public disclosures to give the court jurisdiction. The court noted the lack of temporal overlap with allegations by other ITT employees and Leveski’s more detailed allegations. View "Timothy J. Matusheski v. ITT Educational Services, Inc" on Justia Law

In 2006, Kevin and his wife Marjorie moved to Indiana, to manage car dealerships owned by Savoree. In 2007 Savoree proposed selling the dealerships to the couple through a series of stock purchases to be financed by a $3.5 million loan from CSB. After negotiating the loan with CSB, Kevin took out a life insurance policy with Cincinnati Life that named Marjorie as the beneficiary. Two months later, Kevin assigned that policy to CSB. The couple eventually declared bankruptcy and litigation between all of the parties ensued. Kevin died of cancer in 2010. Cincinnati Life deposited the proceeds, $3 million, with the clerk of court and sought judicial determination of ownership. The district court dismissed Marjorie’s claims with prejudice for failing to meet pleading standards and entered summary judgment for CSB. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that Marjorie did not present any evidence to create a genuine disputed issue of material fact. She identified lack of consideration for the assignment as a potential disputed fact, but the assertion was made and repeated without any support or citation to evidence. View "Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer" on Justia Law

Ryan failed to pay federal income taxes 2006-2010 and owed $136,898.93. In 2011, the IRS recorded a tax lien, 26 U.S.C. 6326. Ryan filed a voluntary Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, 11 U.S.C. 1301. He had personal possessions worth $1,625. He admitted to the tax liabilities, and alleged that his residence had been sold for delinquent real estate taxes and that he did not own a bank account, vehicle, or retirement account. In an adversary proceeding, he alleged that the secured claim for 2009 taxes was limited $1,625 and that the remaining claim was unsecured, 11 U.S.C. 506(a), and void, 11 U.S.C. 506(d). The bankruptcy court held that section 506(d), as interpreted by the Supreme Court, did not allow Ryan to void, or “strip down” the lien. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Section 506(d) provides: To the extent that a lien secures a claim that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void, unless such claim was disallowed only under section 502(b)(5) or 502(e) or such claim is not an allowed secured claim due only to failure to file a proof of such claim. “Allowed secured claim” in 506(d) is not defined by 506(a), but means a claim that is allowed under 502 and secured by a lien enforceable under state law. View "Ryan v. United States" on Justia Law

An employee benefit plan, providing healthcare benefits, believed that Walgreens fraudulently overcharged it and other insurance providers by filling prescriptions for generic drugs with a dosage form that differed from, and was more expensive than, the dosage form prescribed. The plan sued Walgreens and companies that manufactured the generic drugs at issue, claiming a scheme to defraud insurers, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the complaint alleged misconduct by the defendants but did not plausibly allege the type of concerted activity undertaken on behalf of an identifiable enterprise required for a successful RICO claim. RICO is not violated every time two or more participants commit a predicate crime listed in the statute. View "United Food & Commercial Workers Unions v. Walgreen Co." on Justia Law

Between 1994 and 1999 Commonwealth Edison modified five Illinois coal-fired power plants that had been operating on August 7, 1977, and were, therefore, grandfathered against a permitting requirement applicable to any “major emitting facility” built or substantially modified after that date in parts of the country subject to the rules about prevention of significant deterioration, 42 U.S.C. 7475(a), until the modification. The permit requires installation of “the best available control technology for each pollutant subject to regulation.” Commonwealth Edison did not obtain permits. There was no challenge until 2009, a decade after completion of the modifications. The district court dismissed a challenge as untimely. After finishing the modifications, Commonwealth Edison sold the plants to Midwest. The federal government and Illinois (plaintiffs) argued that the district court allowed corporate restructuring to wipe out liability for ongoing pollution. Midwest and its corporate parent (Edison Mission) filed bankruptcy petitions after the appeal was argued. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Midwest cannot be liable because its predecessor would not have been liable had it owned the plants continuously. Commonwealth Edison needed permits before undertaking the modifications. The court rejected arguments of continuing-violation and continuing-injury. View "United States v. Midwest Generation, LLC" on Justia Law