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

Emanuel Dameron was charged with possessing a firearm as a felon after police officers spotted him on a live video feed from a pole camera, observed an "L-shaped object" resembling a gun in his waistband, and subsequently found a gun on him during a frisk search on a public bus in Chicago. Dameron moved to suppress the firearm and other evidence gathered during the stop, arguing that the police's search violated the Fourth Amendment and the standards set in Terry v. Ohio. The district court denied Dameron's motion, and he was found guilty at trial.The district court held an evidentiary hearing, during which the officer operating the pole camera testified about his familiarity with the neighborhood, its history of gang and narcotic activity, and his observation of the "L-shaped object" in Dameron's waistband. The court concluded that the visible bulge in Dameron's waistband and his presence in a high-crime area generated reasonable suspicion to justify the Terry stop. Dameron was subsequently found guilty and sentenced to 110 months' imprisonment.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Dameron renewed his contention that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. He argued that Illinois permits the concealed carrying of firearms and that the police had no way of knowing whether he was an authorized license holder. The court declined to address this argument as it was not presented to the district court. Instead, the court focused on the fact that Dameron was on a public bus when the search occurred, noting that the Illinois Concealed Carry Act prohibits carrying a firearm on public transportation. The court concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe Dameron had violated the law and that their pat-down search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "United States v. Dameron" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Morgan Morales, who appealed against an administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision that she was not disabled and hence, not entitled to Social Security disability benefits. Morales claimed to suffer from several conditions, including bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, ADHD, and narcolepsy. After being treated at a mental health center and starting on prescription medications, Morales reported that her conditions were in remission. The ALJ, however, denied her application for benefits, finding that her mental impairments were mild and did not limit her ability to perform basic work activities, including her past job as a material handler.Morales challenged the ALJ's decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. She criticized the ALJ's decision about her functional capacity to work but failed to provide evidence compelling the conclusion that the adverse disability decision lacked substantial support in the record. The District Court upheld the ALJ's decision, stating that Morales had not carried her burden of proof and that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence.The case was then brought to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that Morales had misunderstood the burden she bore on appeal. The court noted that it was not enough to criticize the ALJ's decision; Morales needed to point to evidence compelling the conclusion that the adverse disability decision lacked substantial support in the record. The court also dismissed Morales's criticism of the District Court's decision, stating that the District Court had conducted an adequate review of the ALJ's determination and correctly applied the law. The court concluded that the ALJ's determination was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, and therefore, affirmed the decision. View "Morales v. O'Malley" on Justia Law

The defendant, Otho Harris, visited a Boost Mobile store for assistance with his broken cellphone. When told it could not be repaired, he became enraged and later set fire to the store, causing extensive damage. Harris was charged with arson and, after difficult relationships with three different appointed attorneys, he chose to represent himself and eventually pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to eight years in prison and ordered to pay $195,701 in restitution.The case moved slowly due to Harris's disagreements with his appointed counsel. After the third appointed lawyer moved to withdraw, Harris decided to represent himself. He filed numerous pretrial motions and requests with the court. A few weeks before the scheduled trial date, he agreed to plead guilty and signed a written plea agreement with the government. The judge accepted his guilty plea and set the case for sentencing.On appeal, Harris challenged only the restitution order, arguing that it was not supported by a proper investigation and determination of the loss amount. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that Harris had waived his right to challenge the restitution order by expressly affirming the accuracy of the factual material in the presentence report at the sentencing hearing. The court noted that Harris had ample notice of the restitution amount, the factual basis for it, and an opportunity to object. He did not object; on the contrary, he affirmed that he was satisfied with the accuracy of the factual material in the presentence report. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

The case revolves around an incident where Charles Brumitt, who was intoxicated and lying on a utility box, struck Evansville Police Department Sergeant Sam Smith. In response, Smith punched Brumitt four times in the face, knocking him unconscious. Brumitt sued Smith under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Smith used excessive force in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Smith sought summary judgment, arguing that his use of force was objectively reasonable and that he was entitled to qualified immunity.The district court denied Smith's motion for summary judgment. It concluded that there were factual disputes that prevented it from determining whether the force used by Smith was reasonable and whether Smith was entitled to qualified immunity. The court stated that the right Brumitt asserted—“to be free from force once subdued”—was clearly established. Smith appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court concluded that Brumitt had not met his burden of showing that Smith violated a clearly established right. The court found that no case clearly established that a reasonable officer must reassess his use of force within less than four seconds. Therefore, Smith was entitled to qualified immunity. The court remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in Smith's favor on the Fourth Amendment claim. View "Brumitt v. Smith" on Justia Law

Thermoflex Waukegan, a company that required its hourly workers to use handprints to clock in and out, was sued for allegedly violating the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by not obtaining workers' written consent and using a third party to process the data. Thermoflex had multiple insurance policies, including three from Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance, which declined to defend or indemnify Thermoflex, leading to this suit.The district court ruled that an exclusion in the Basic policy made it inapplicable to any claim based on BIPA. The exclusion stated that the insurance did not apply to claims arising out of any access to or disclosure of any person’s or organization’s confidential or personal information. The court found this exclusion straightforward, as BIPA identifies biometric information as confidential.The Excess and Umbrella policy had two parts. Coverage E contained the same exclusions as the Basic policy, and the court agreed with the district court's ruling that it did not apply to claims under BIPA. Coverage U lacked an exclusion relating to nonpublic information. The district court found that none of the three arguably applicable exclusions to Coverage U clearly foreclosed a duty to provide Thermoflex with a defense in the state-court suit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. It agreed with the district court's interpretation of the Basic policy and Coverage E of the Excess and Umbrella policy. It also agreed that the three exclusions to Coverage U did not apply to BIPA. Therefore, it held that Mitsui owed Thermoflex a defense under the Umbrella policy, provided that the limits of another policy that applies to the BIPA claims, plus deductibles, have been exhausted. View "Thermoflex Waukegan, LLC v. Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought a Title VII employment discrimination action on behalf of black employees of Village at Hamilton Pointe, LLC, a long-term care facility in Indiana. The EEOC alleged that Hamilton Pointe and Tender Loving Care Management, LLC (TLC), which provides services to Hamilton Pointe, subjected the employees to racial harassment. The district court granted TLC’s motion for summary judgment with respect to some of the employees, ruling that TLC could not be considered an employer under Title VII. The court also granted Hamilton Pointe’s motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the claims of forty employees. Seven remaining employees proceeded to a jury trial, with damages awarded to one employee. The EEOC appealed the grant of summary judgment for TLC and Hamilton Pointe, and the jury’s verdict.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The court found that the EEOC failed to establish that the employees were subjected to a racially hostile work environment that was so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of their employment. The court also found that the EEOC failed to establish that TLC was a joint employer of the claimants. The court emphasized that the federal law governing racial harassment proscribes conduct that is so severe or pervasive as to change the conditions of the victim’s employment, but does not ensure that the worker will have wise and skilled superiors with a sharply honed sense of social justice and a mastery of personnel management skills. View "EEOC v. Village at Hamilton Pointe LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves Maria and Jose Jimenez, who were involved in an auto accident with Stephen Kiefer. After the accident, the Jimenezes requested $100,000 from Kiefer's auto insurer, Travelers Commercial Insurance Company, to settle their claim against Kiefer. Travelers refused the offer, leading the Jimenezes to sue Kiefer in Illinois court. The Jimenezes and Kiefer entered into an agreement where Kiefer stipulated to a judgment against himself and assigned his rights and claims against Travelers to the Jimenezes. In exchange, the Jimenezes agreed not to execute the judgment against Kiefer personally. The Jimenezes then initiated a citation proceeding against Travelers, seeking to discover whether it held any of Kiefer’s assets.Travelers removed the action to federal court and filed for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for Travelers, finding that Kiefer and the Jimenezes (as his assignees) were entitled to nothing under the insurance policy and had no claim for breach of any duties Travelers owed Kiefer. The Jimenezes appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the citation proceeding was an independent, removable action. It also agreed with the district court that the Jimenezes, as Kiefer’s assignees, could not recover under the policy in light of the legally responsible provision. The court concluded that Travelers could hold Kiefer to the terms of the policy, and under a strict construction of those terms, Kiefer was not legally responsible for the judgment because the covenant not to execute precluded its enforcement. Therefore, the legally responsible provision bars the Jimenezes’ recovery as Kiefer’s assignees. View "Jimenez v. Travelers Commercial Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Gustavo Colon, serving a life sentence for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(a), appealed the denial of his motion for a reduced sentence under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. The district court denied his motion on the grounds that Colon’s CCE conviction was not a “covered offense” under the Act.Previously, Colon was found guilty of conspiring to distribute various drugs, engaging in a CCE, using a telephone in commission of his conspiracy, and distributing cocaine. The sentencing judge vacated Colon’s conspiracy conviction, determining that it violated the double jeopardy clause because conspiracy was a lesser-included offense of the CCE offense of which Colon was also convicted. The judge imposed a life sentence for the CCE conviction. In 2003, this court affirmed Colon’s conviction and sentence.In 2021, Colon moved for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act, which allows a court to reduce the sentence of a “covered offense”—that is, an offense that had its statutory penalties modified by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. The district judge denied the motion, concluding that Colon’s CCE conviction was not a “covered offense” because the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify 21 U.S.C. § 848(a).The United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court concluded that a CCE conviction under § 848(a) is not a “covered offense” under the First Step Act because its penalties—twenty years to life imprisonment—were not altered by the Fair Sentencing Act. Therefore, Colon was not eligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. View "USA v. Colon" on Justia Law

Donald Artz, an electric distribution controller at WEC Energy Group, retired due to multiple sclerosis (MS) and sought long-term disability benefits from a plan administered by Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company. Hartford denied his claim, asserting that Artz was not "disabled" within the plan's definition. Artz filed a lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, alleging that Hartford's disability determination was arbitrary and capricious because it misconstrued the plan's terms and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for its decision.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The district court upheld the denial of benefits at summary judgment, concluding that Artz had placed too much emphasis on the duties of his specific position at WEC rather than the "essential duties" of his job in the general workplace as required by the company’s plan. The court also underscored the independent medical reviews commissioned by Hartford and found the medical evidence supported the conclusion that Artz’s MS did not prevent him from working a standard 40-hour week as a power-distribution engineer.The case was then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that Hartford had communicated rational reasons for its decision based on a fair reading of the plan and Artz’s medical records. The court concluded that the plan administrator provided sufficient process and that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act requires no more. The court noted that while Artz's condition was serious, the evidence did not show that the severity and persistency of his symptoms resulted in functional impairment as defined by the policy. View "Artz v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company" on Justia Law

This case revolves around a real estate Ponzi scheme run by Jerome and Shaun Cohen through their companies, EquityBuild, Inc. and EquityBuild Finance, LLC (EBF), from 2010 to 2018. The Cohens sold promissory notes to investors, each note representing a fractional interest in a specific real estate property. The properties were mostly located in underdeveloped areas of Chicago and were secured by mortgages. As the scheme became unsustainable, the Cohens began offering opportunities to invest in real estate funds. BC57, LLC, a private lender and investor, lent approximately $5.3 million to EquityBuild, allegedly in exchange for a first mortgage on five properties already owned by EquityBuild and subject to preexisting liens from individual investors.The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed suit against the Cohens, EquityBuild, and EBF after the scheme collapsed in 2018. A court-appointed receiver developed a plan for the recovery and liquidation of all remaining, recoverable receivership assets. The receiver sold the five properties and now holds the proceeds, over $3 million, pending the resolution of the claims process. The individual investors whose loans BC57’s investment purportedly paid off claim priority to those proceeds, arguing that they never received payment or released their interests, despite the releases signed by Shaun Cohen. BC57 disagrees and asserts that it has priority. The district court awarded priority to the individual investors, finding that the mortgage releases were facially defective and that EBF lacked the authority to execute them.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that under the Illinois Mortgage Act, payment alone does not extinguish any pre-existing interest absent a valid release. The court also found that the releases purportedly executed by EBF were facially invalid. The court concluded that the individual investors maintain their interests in these five properties. View "SEC v. BC57, LLC" on Justia Law