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

Clark was badly injured as he was getting off a car-crushing machine--a mobile RB6000 Logger/Baler--which was used by his employer, Thornton Auto Crushing. He sued both the crusher’s manufacturer, Sierra, and the company that had leased it to Thornton, River Metals, asserting that they were liable to him under Illinois tort law because it was defectively designed. The district court granted summary judgment in both defendants’ favor after striking the testimony from Clark’s expert. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court’s decision to exclude the testimony represented a reasonable assessment of the proposed evidence. It found the expert’s methodology to be unclear and conclusory. There was no need for a hearing; the report was just five pages long, including the expert’s discussion of the facts, his description of the machine, and his recitation of the Operator’s Manual. His analysis covers one page and misstates a standard concerning equipment safeguards. The case was not one that could be decided based on common experience. View "Clark v. River Metals Recycling, LLC" on Justia Law

Kiebala owns a luxury car share service, Curvy Road, that allows customers to purchase time‐ownership rights to high‐end automobiles that are owned by “investors.” In 2009, Boris became a Curvy Road “investor” and received a share of the rental revenue when customers drove his Lamborghini Gallardo. In 2010, Boris withdrew his car from the program. Kiebala’s check for Boris's payment did not clear. Boris never received his final payment. Boris posted angry and derogatory statements on various websites. The final posting was made to RipoffReport.com in July 2011; its heading asserted that Kiebala was a “SCAM and FRAUD!” and “Stole Money!” In October 2014, Boris emailed Kiebala that he wanted to give him “a chance to make good ... before I put my review of your company on various websites.” The parties did not reach an agreement. Boris launched a new round of internet postings. In July 2015, on scamorg.com, Boris posted a statement almost identical to his RipoffReport post and “updated” his original 2011 post. Kiebala, representing himself, sued Boris in July 2016, alleging Illinois state law claims. The district court dismissed the complaint as untimely. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the district court abused its discretion in failing to suggest how Kiebala could amend his complaint to avoid dismissal. District judges do not have an affirmative duty to coach parties, even pro se parties, The applicable Illinois statute of limitations bars Kiebala’s libel claim. View "Kiebala v. Boris" on Justia Law

A jury found that Morgan possessed the 86.5 grams of methamphetamine that he tossed past law enforcement officers in the Peoria airport. Morgan had testified that all of it was for his personal use. The jury could not agree on whether the government proved that he possessed the methamphetamine with the intent to deliver, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); (b)(1)(A). They declared themselves deadlocked on that issue—the one charged in the indictment—but found him guilty of the lesser included offense of possession of methamphetamine. At a second trial, the court read the jury a limiting instruction several times: you’re going to hear testimony that the defendant committed a wrong other than the one charged in the indictment. Before using this evidence, you must decide whether it’s more likely than not that the defendant committed the wrong that is not charged in the indictment. If you decide that he did, then you may consider this evidence to help you decide whether the defendant intended to distribute methamphetamine …. You may not consider it for any other purpose ... the defendant is on trial here for possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute ... not for the other wrong. Morgan was sentenced to 240 months for possession with intent to distribute. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding only harmless errors and no violation of his Fifth Amendment right to be free from double jeopardy. View "United States v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Corbett’s businesses were governed by separate, substantively identical, Auto Driveaway franchise agreements. Each included non‐compete and non‐disclosure clauses and a 2016 expiration date. Those expiration dates passed. Both parties continued dealing as though the agreements were still in place until November 2017, when Auto Driveaway mailed an offer to renew the contracts for another five years. Corbett never responded but continued operating his franchises as before. Auto Driveaway subsequently learned that Corbett was building an app to compete against the app it had hired Corbett to build. Auto Driveaway suspected that Corbett was using its proprietary work product as a starting point. Corbett was set to launch his app through a new company, InnovAuto, in direct competition with Auto Driveaway. Auto Driveaway filed suit. Months later, Auto Driveaway discovered that Corbett had another competitive auto transport business, Tactical. Auto Driveaway obtained a preliminary injunction, stating that Corbett may not engage in any conduct that might violate the non‐compete clause of the franchise agreement. The court required Auto Driveaway to post a $10,000 bond as security for the injunction. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the district court must revisit the form of the injunction and the amount of security. Nothing covered by the order went beyond the controversy before the court or could have surprised Corbett but it is not a stand-alone separate document that spells out within its four corners exactly what the parties must or must not do. View "Auto Driveaway Franchise Systems, LLC v. Corbett" on Justia Law

Purdue students John and Jane had consensual sexual intercourse 15-20 times. Jane’s behavior became erratic. Jane attempted suicide. Weeks later, John reported Jane’s suicide attempt to an advisor. Jane was upset and distanced herself from John. Months later, during Sexual Assault Awareness Month, Jane alleged that while sleeping with John, she woke to him groping her over her clothes. Jane says she reprimanded John. John then purportedly confessed that he had digitally penetrated her while she was sleeping weeks earlier. Jane told the university that John had gone through her underwear drawer, chased her through a hallway while joking about tasering her, gone to her room unannounced, and lost his temper in front of her. Purdue pursued Jane’s allegations although Jane did not file a formal complaint. John was suspended from Navy ROTC, banned from buildings where Jane had classes and from his dining hall. John submitted a denial, noting that after the alleged incidents, Jane texted him over the holidays, sent his family cookies, and invited him to her room. Investigators neither gave him a copy of the report nor shared its contents. Moments before his committee appearance, he learned that it falsely claimed that he had confessed and failed to describe Jane’s suicide attempt. Jane neither appeared nor submitted a written statement. The panel refused John permission to present witnesses. John was found guilty by a preponderance of the evidence. Purdue suspended him for a year and imposed conditions on his readmission. The ROTC program terminated his scholarship. John sued, asserting Purdue used flawed procedures and violated Title IX by imposing a punishment infected by sex bias. A magistrate dismissed. The Seventh Circuit reversed. John adequately alleged violations of both the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX. View "Doe v. Purdue University" on Justia Law

The Debtors each owed debts to the Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS). Dennis owed $7,962.25 for overpayments made to her under the Illinois Child Care Assistance Program; Halbert owed for overpayments made to her under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The Debtors each filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court in each case held that the overpayment debts were not priority domestic support obligations, 11 U.S.C. 547(c)(7). The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Debtors do not owe DHS money for support payments; they owe DHS because they received money they were not statutorily entitled to. Because such a payment is not in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support, this is merely an overpayment of benefits and the debt is subject to avoidance in bankruptcy. View "Halbert v. Dimas" on Justia Law

GL services repayment of Nelson's federally-insured student loans. On its website, GL tells borrowers struggling to make their loan payments: “Our trained experts work on your behalf,” and “You don’t have to pay for student loan services or advice,” because “Our expert representatives have access to your latest student loan information and understand all of your options.” Nelson alleged that when she and other members of the putative class struggled to make payments, GL steered borrowers into repayment plans that were to its advantage and to borrowers’ detriment. She alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, constructive fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The district court dismissed the claims as preempted by a federal Higher Education Act provision: “Loans made, insured, or guaranteed pursuant to a program authorized by ... the Higher Education Act ... shall not be subject to any disclosure requirements of any State Law,” 20 U.S.C. 1098g. The Seventh Circuit vacated. When a loan servicer holds itself out as having experts who work for borrowers, tells borrowers that they need not look elsewhere for advice, and tells them that its experts know what options are in their best interest, those statements, when untrue, are not mere failures to disclose information but are affirmative misrepresentations. A borrower who reasonably relied on them to her detriment is not barred from bringing state‐law consumer protection and tort claims. View "Nelson v. Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The agreement gave Division the exclusive right to purchase aged and customer-returned merchandise from Finish and provided for an 18-month term “commencing on March 1, 2001” that could be extended by written agreement of the parties “prior to the expiration of the term or any extension thereof.” The agreement was twice amended. Despite the 2008 agreement’s express ending date of December 31, 2013, Finish continued to ship products to Division in 2014. Finish eventually stopped dealing with Division and began dealing with other parties. In 2015, Division wrote to Finish asserting its exclusive right under the agreement to purchase Finish’s surplus products. Finish asserted that the agreement was no longer in effect. The district court dismissed Division’s suit, concluding that the agreement did not provide for perpetual self-renewal and the 2008 Amendment did not provide for an automatic extension. Since the plain language was not ambiguous, the court refused to consider extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent—the 2014 shipments. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The agreement is clear and unambiguous, Division’s extrinsic evidence cannot be considered. There was no automatic extension following the 2008 amendment extension; the agreement was no longer in force after December 2013 and Finish did not commit a breach when it began dealing with third parties in 2014. View "Division Six Sports, Inc. v. Finish Line, Inc." on Justia Law

Fields, an African-American woman, was an Edgebrook teacher since 2002. Weiden became Edgebrook’s principal in 2013; he required teachers to submit lesson plans. He informed Fields that her plans were too scripted. During observations, he noted often that Fields’s teaching was disconnected from her lesson plans and that students were not engaged. Fields refused assistance. Chicago Public Schools rated Fields’s job performance as “developing.” Fields did not attend an evening “open house” and did not inform the administration that she would not attend and did not attend a mandatory “professional development session.” Fields did not submit timely field trip forms and did not attend a “principal‐directed preparation period.” She failed to turn in lesson plans and failed to properly notify the school about requested leave. When Fields accrued three performance improvement plans, she faced possible disciplinary action. In mediation, the Board suggested that Fields could retire with a “do not rehire” designation. Fields received no discipline but took a leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act. She retired in 2016 at age 63, without returning to work. Fields sued Weiden and the Board of Education for racial and age discrimination, with a retaliation claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. Fields could not show that she suffered an adverse employment action; she was not constructively discharged. She did not establish that anything other than job performance was behind the defendants’ actions. View "Fields v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago" on Justia Law

During a Rock Island, Illinois traffic stop, two officers were arresting the driver of a vehicle on an outstanding warrant, when they recognized defendant Yancey, the passenger. Based on their past interactions with Yancey, and their familiarity with a contact sheet labeling him as potentially armed, the officers decided to pat him down for weapons. Before they could do so, Yancey ran. The officers tackled him and saw a handgun sticking out of his waistband. Yancey was subsequently convicted of felony possession of a firearm. Yancey claimed that police lacked justification to keep him from leaving the scene. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, Under Supreme Court precedent, police officers can detain passengers in a car while a stop is ongoing if they have a lawful reason to seize the driver. The officers lawfully stopped the car in which Yancey rode as a passenger and that stop was still lawfully ongoing when Yancey tried to flee; it was not unreasonable for the officers to detain him. View "United States v. Yancey" on Justia Law