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

The case involves a consumer, Yoram Kahn, who alleges that Walmart Inc., the nation's largest retailer, engages in deceptive and unfair pricing practices. Kahn claims that there are small discrepancies between the prices advertised on Walmart's shelves and the prices actually charged at the cash register. These discrepancies, he alleges, add up to hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Kahn argues that these practices violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and other states' consumer protection statutes. He also brings a claim for unjust enrichment and seeks to sue on behalf of a class of similarly situated consumers.The district court dismissed the case on the pleadings and denied leave to amend the complaint. The court reasoned that providing a customer with a receipt after payment stating the actual price charged is sufficient to dispel any potential deception or unfairness caused by an inaccurate shelf price. The court also held that Kahn failed to allege that Walmart intended for him to rely on the inaccurate shelf pricing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the complaint states some viable claims. The court rejected the theory that providing a receipt after payment is sufficient to dispel any potential deception or unfairness caused by an inaccurate shelf price. The court also found that Kahn had adequately alleged a deceptive or unfair practice and the required intent. The court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Kahn v. Walmart Inc." on Justia Law

The case revolves around Larry Sapp, an Army veteran with a history of felony drug convictions, who was elected to the Sauk Village Board of Trustees in Illinois. However, his felony convictions came to the attention of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, which used two Illinois statutes to remove him from his position. These statutes bar certain felons from holding public office. Sapp challenged the constitutionality of these statutes, arguing that they violated the Eighth Amendment's clauses on Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Excessive Fines by barring him from public service and depriving him of the income a career in public service would generate.The Cook County Circuit Court rejected Sapp's arguments, ruling that the statutes' enforcement did not violate the Eighth Amendment. The court held that Sapp was ineligible to serve as a Board Trustee and removed him from his position. Sapp then filed a federal lawsuit against Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and State’s Attorney Kimberly Foxx, seeking to bar the Cook County State’s Attorney from enforcing either statute against him in future elections. He reiterated his Eighth Amendment arguments and added a new one, claiming that enforcing the statutes against him would violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Sapp’s complaint. The court did not reach the merits of Sapp's constitutional arguments, instead ruling that they were foreclosed by Illinois principles of collateral estoppel and res judicata. The court held that Sapp's federal lawsuit arose from the same group of operative facts as the State’s Attorney’s quo warranto action in Cook County Court, and thus constituted the same "cause of action" under Illinois law. As a result, Sapp was barred from raising arguments in the federal suit that were available to him in the quo warranto action. View "Sapp v. Foxx" on Justia Law

Robert Townsend was convicted for attempted enticement of a minor, under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b), and was sentenced to 10 years in prison, followed by 10 years of supervised release. Townsend argued that the district judge erred by allowing the seriousness of his crime to influence the length of his supervised release.The district court had considered the seriousness of Townsend's crime in determining the length of his supervised release. Townsend argued that this was an error, citing United States v. Wilcher, a Seventh Circuit case that held the duration of supervised release cannot rest solely on the seriousness of the crime. Townsend sought to extend this ruling to argue that the seriousness of an offense should not be considered at all in determining the length of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed with Townsend's interpretation of the Wilcher ruling. The court noted that while the seriousness of the crime cannot be the sole factor in determining the length of supervised release, it can be one of several factors considered. The court pointed out that the nature of the offense, the need for deterrence, and the need to protect the public all correlate with the seriousness of the offense. The district judge had considered these factors, emphasizing the danger Townsend posed to the public and the nature and circumstances of his offense.The court held that the district judge had not erred in considering the seriousness of Townsend's crime as one of several factors in determining the length of his supervised release. The court affirmed the district court's decision, upholding Townsend's sentence of 10 years in prison followed by 10 years of supervised release. View "United States v. Townsend" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Motorola Solutions, Inc. and Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd., two global competitors in the market for two-way radio systems. After struggling to develop its own competing products, Hytera poached three engineers from Motorola, who, before leaving Motorola, downloaded thousands of documents and files containing Motorola's trade secrets and copyrighted source code. Using this stolen material, Hytera launched a line of radios that were functionally indistinguishable from Motorola's radios. In 2017, Motorola sued Hytera for copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation.The jury found that Hytera had violated both the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) and the Copyright Act, awarding compensatory and punitive damages totaling $764.6 million. The district court later reduced the award to $543.7 million and denied Motorola’s request for a permanent injunction. Both parties appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the district court must recalculate copyright damages, which will need to be reduced substantially from the original award of $136.3 million. The court affirmed the district court’s award of $135.8 million in compensatory damages and $271.6 million in punitive damages under the DTSA. The court also found that the district court erred in denying Motorola’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of permanent injunctive relief. The case was remanded for the district court to reconsider the issue of permanent injunctive relief. View "Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd." on Justia Law

The case involves Millard Williams, who was convicted for orchestrating the shipment of a package containing furanyl fentanyl, a Schedule I controlled substance, while in a Georgia jail. Williams was found guilty of conspiring to possess and possessing at least 100 grams of furanyl fentanyl. The jury also determined that furanyl fentanyl is an “analogue of fentanyl,” triggering a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(vi). Williams appealed, arguing that furanyl fentanyl is not an “analogue of fentanyl” as defined in the statute, and that the district court’s definition of “analogue” renders the provision unconstitutionally vague.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed with Williams. The court held that the term “controlled substance analogue” is distinct from the term “analogue of fentanyl,” and therefore, the court must look to the ordinary meaning of the word “analogue.” The court found nothing problematically vague about the definition that emerges as applied to furanyl fentanyl. The court also rejected Williams’s other challenges to his conviction and sentence, including his argument that the district court should have suppressed the evidence found inside the intercepted package. The court concluded that the district court made no errors requiring resentencing. View "USA v. Williams" on Justia Law

Rodney Clemons, an inmate at Stateville Correctional Center, filed a lawsuit against Wexford Health Sources, Inc., and two of its physicians, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious foot condition. Clemons had injured his right ankle before his incarceration and suffered from pain in his right ankle and foot for several years while incarcerated. He claimed that the defendants prioritized cost concerns over reasoned medical judgment.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the treatment plan adopted by the physicians was reasonable and that there was no evidence of a widespread pattern of indifference that could infer a constitutional violation by Wexford.Clemons appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the prison doctor's treatment decisions were not so unacceptable that no minimally competent professional would have responded in the same way. The court also found that the alleged policy of limiting referrals to trim costs was not facially unconstitutional. Furthermore, Clemons failed to show a pattern of violations that would infer that Wexford was aware of and condoned the misconduct of their employees. Therefore, the court concluded that Clemons failed to show that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. View "Clemons v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc." on Justia Law

The case revolves around Tondalaya Gamble, a Black physician who worked at Cook County Health’s John Stroger Hospital for approximately eleven years. Gamble sued Cook County and her former department and division chairs, Edward Linn and Fidel Abrego, alleging race discrimination. She claimed that Cook County violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Illinois Human Rights Act, and that Linn and Abrego violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. Gamble argued that she was paid less than similarly situated non-Black physicians.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that no reasonable jury could find in Gamble’s favor on any of her claims. The court found that Gamble failed to establish that she was similarly situated to her chosen comparators, two white physicians, Bruce Rosenzweig and Karen Fish. The court noted that Rosenzweig was a part-time employee while Gamble was full-time, and that Fish had more experience and was hired to perform different duties.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that no reasonable jury could find that Gamble was similarly situated to Rosenzweig or Fish. The court noted that the part-time versus full-time distinction was not dispositive in and of itself, but that other differences, such as their different duties and experience, made them inapt comparators for Gamble’s discrimination claim. The court concluded that Gamble presented no other evidence suggesting that her pay or demanding work responsibilities were because of her race. View "Gamble v. County of Cook" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of consumers who filed arbitration claims against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., alleging that Samsung unlawfully collected and stored sensitive biometric data through their electronic devices, in violation of Illinois law. Samsung denied the allegations and refused to pay the administrative filing fees required by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). The AAA terminated the arbitration proceedings, and the consumers filed a petition to compel arbitration in district court. The district court ordered Samsung to arbitrate and to pay the associated AAA filing fees. Samsung appealed, disputing the existence of an arbitration agreement with the consumers and challenging the district court’s authority to require it to pay the AAA’s fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The court found that the consumers failed to meet their evidentiary burden in proving the existence of an arbitration agreement with Samsung. Furthermore, the court held that the district court exceeded its authority by ordering Samsung to pay the AAA's filing fees. The court reasoned that the parties' alleged agreement incorporated the AAA's rules and procedures, which granted the AAA substantial discretion over resolving fee disputes. Therefore, the court concluded that the arbitration had been conducted according to the terms of the alleged agreement, and the district court did not have the authority to order Samsung to pay the AAA's fees. View "Wallrich v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc." on Justia Law

Jerome Ford was sentenced to 96 months in prison for possessing a firearm despite his felony conviction, followed by three years of supervised release. The judgment included a condition that Ford must pay a fine of $250 immediately, even though this condition was not mentioned during sentencing or in the presentence report.Ford appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing that the payment condition was unauthorized because it was not mentioned during sentencing or in the presentence report. He requested that the payment condition be removed from the judgment. The court noted that when there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment in a criminal case, the oral pronouncement usually prevails. However, there is an exception for conditions of supervision required by law, which do not need to be announced orally.The court found that the payment condition was not required by law, but was included in a list of mandatory conditions in the Sentencing Guidelines. Ford argued that these guidelines ceased being mandatory after a previous case, United States v. Booker, declared them to be advisory. The court noted that this argument was not necessarily true, as the conditions of supervised release were not affected by the Booker decision.However, the court accepted the prosecutor's implied concession that the payment condition may not be mandatory. As a result, the court decided that the payment condition must be vacated. The court noted that this decision may not benefit Ford, as a statute provides that people who do not pay their fines may be returned to prison. The court also noted that the district judge could add the payment condition to the judgment at any time. The court modified the district court's judgment to delete the payment condition. View "United States v. Ford" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over attorney's fees in a Social Security disability benefits case. The plaintiff, Christian Arnold, was represented by the law firm Binder & Binder. After Arnold was determined to be disabled and entitled to past-due benefits, the law firm requested attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), based on a contingency fee agreement Arnold had signed. However, the district court reduced the requested fees by nearly sixty percent, arguing that the full request would result in a "windfall" for the law firm, which was prohibited by statute. Binder & Binder appealed this decision.The case was initially heard by an administrative law judge (ALJ) who concluded that Arnold was not disabled. Arnold appealed this decision to the district court, which remanded the case back to the ALJ. On remand, the ALJ ruled in Arnold's favor, and the Social Security Administration issued a Notice of Award to Arnold for past-due benefits. Binder & Binder then moved for attorney's fees in the district court under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), based on their contingency fee agreement with Arnold. The district court, however, reduced the requested fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court had abused its discretion by not basing its analysis primarily on the contingency agreement before considering the reasonableness of the request. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court emphasized that the contingency fee agreement should be the starting point for determining reasonableness under § 406(b), and any reduction should be justified based on relevant factors such as the claimant's satisfaction with their attorney's representation, the attorney's expertise and efforts expended, and the uncertainty of recovery and risks of an adverse outcome. View "Arnold v. O'Malley" on Justia Law