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

In 1996 Aldaco pleaded guilty to battery and received a sentence of six months’ supervision, a diversionary disposition under Illinois law. The court entered a finding of guilt and deferred proceedings. After Aldaco complied with the conditions of her supervision, the court dismissed the charge. Aldaco could have had the battery record expunged, but did not ask the court to do so. Nineteen years later Aldaco wished to rent an apartment. As part of one application process, she consented to a criminal background check, which the landlord outsourced to Yardi. Its report flagged her battery sentence and the landlord refused to rent to Aldaco. She protested to Yardi, falsely asserting that the battery record did not pertain to her. She did not inform Yardi that the reported length of her sentence was incorrect. Yardi reexamined its work and confirmed that the record pertained to Aldaco. Aldaco filed suit, contending that Yardi—as a consumer reporting agency—violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it disclosed her criminal history. The Act prohibits reporting agencies from disclosing any arrest record or other adverse items more than seven years old but permits them to report “records of convictions” no matter how old, 15 U.S.C. 1681c(a). The Act does not define the word “conviction.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Yardi. Federal law controls; the word “convictions” encompasses pleas of guilt. View "Aldaco v. Rentgrow, Inc." on Justia Law

Patel pleaded guilty to five counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, for his role in selling $179 million in fraudulent loans to an investment advisor. Patel delayed his sentencing date for a year while he purported to help recover funds for his victims. While on bond, just days before he was to be sentenced, Patel attempted to flee the U.S. and seek political asylum elsewhere. Agents arrested him just before he boarded a chartered flight to Ecuador. The government discovered that while on bond, instead of earning money for his victims through consulting fees and redevelopment projects, Patel and another used fictitious identities and entities to defraud an Iowa lender out of millions of dollars. Approximately $2.2 million of the money Patel had ostensibly earned for the fraud victims was newly‐stolen money. The court imposed a below-guidelines sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the sentence as procedurally and substantively reasonable. Patel made a disparity argument, the government had the opportunity to respond, and the court addressed it on the record; nothing more is required. The court’s comments regarding Patel’s psychological state and motivations relate to factors that a court must consider at sentencing, 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1), (2)(A). There is no indication that the court “did not like” him and sentenced him inappropriately as a result. View "United States v. Patel" on Justia Law

Since his March 2008, birth, L.D.R. has consistently received medical care in the fields of pediatrics, otolaryngology, pulmonology, psychology, and speech pathology. His mother first sought social security benefits on his behalf when he was one year old. L.D.R.’s health, development, and behavioral issues deteriorated and improved at various times. A child is disabled under social security income rules if the child has a “medically determinable physical or mental impairment, which results in marked and severe functional limitations” that “has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months,” 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(C)(i). The Social Security Administration determined that L.D.R. was disabled as of August 2015, just before he enrolled in second grade. The Seventh Circuit rejected a request for retroactive payments and a challenge to the constitutionality of the law prohibiting an award of benefits for a period before the application for benefits. The AuSgust 2015 disability date was well supported in the ALJ’s decision, which considered in particular detail L.D.R.’s various conditions, their history, the treatments he received, and L.D.R.’s reactions to these treatments. The prohibition on pre-application benefits satisfies rational basis scrutiny. View "L.D.R. v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

The Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act requires an applicant for a concealed-carry license to show that he is not a clear and present danger to himself or a threat to public safety and, within the past five years, has not been a patient in a mental hospital, convicted of a violent misdemeanor or two or more violations of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or participated in a residential or court-ordered drug or alcohol treatment program, 430 ILCS 66/10(a)(4), 66/25(3), 66/25(5); 430 ILCS 65/4, 65/8. These standards are identical for residents and nonresidents. State police conduct an extensive background check for each applicant. During the five-year licensing period, state police check all resident licensees against the Illinois Criminal History Record Inquiry and Department of Human Services mental health system daily. The law mandates that physicians, law enforcement officials, and school administrators report persons suspected of posing a clear and present danger to themselves or others within 24 hours of that determination. Monitoring compliance of out-of-state residents is limited by Illinois’s inability to obtain complete, timely information about nonresidents, so Illinois issues licenses only to nonresidents living in states with licensing standards substantially similar to Illinois standards. The Seventh Circuit upheld the law in a challenge by nonresidents, as respecting the Second Amendment without offending the anti-discrimination principle at the heart of Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause. View "Culp v. Raoul" on Justia Law

Sanchelima contracted to serve as Walker’s exclusive distributor of silos in 13 Latin American countries. Walker agreed not to sell silos directly to third parties in those countries. The contract contained a limited remedies provision and a damages disclaimer and was subject to Wisconsin law. Walker assigned a representative to work with Sanchelima, but otherwise did not market its products in the relevant countries. In 2014, Walker nonetheless sold silos for a factory in Mexico and to a Nicaraguan company. In 2015, Walker sold silos to a Mexican plant; in 2017, Walker sold tanks to a Mexican company. Sanchelima notified Walker that it considered the sales a breach of the agreement, then filed suit. Walker terminated the agreement without cause. Sanchelima sought lost profits of more than $600,000. Walker cited the limited remedies provision as an affirmative defense. It explicitly precludes recovery of “any lost profits … arising out of or in connection with the Distributor Agreement.” The district court held that provision violates Wisconsin’s version of the UCC 2‐719, Wis. Stat. 402.719: Where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in chs. 401 to 411... Consequential damages may be limited or excluded unless the limitation or exclusion is unconscionable. Because the limited remedy provision provided no relief for Walker’s breach of the exclusivity provision, the court held it failed of its essential purpose and awarded Sanchelima $778,306.70. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has interpreted UCC's limited remedy provisions; other states have interpreted those provisions differently. The Seventh Circuit declined to overturn state precedent as inconsistent with modern trends, “until and unless the Wisconsin Supreme Court decides to overturn it.” View "Sanchelima International, Inc. v. Walker Stainless Equipment Co., KKC" on Justia Law

The labor agreement between Brock, a provider of industrial services, including scaffolding, painting, and shoring, and the Laborers Union requires arbitration of grievances and establishes a bipartite arbitration procedure for resolving most disputes. Work-jurisdiction disputes—disputes over whether the Laborers or another union is entitled to perform work—are instead subject to a tripartite arbitration procedure involving the company and the contending unions. Before signing the agreement, Brock hired the Laborers to perform scaffolding work at a chemical plant. After the agreement became effective, Brock informed the Laborers that it was reassigning the work to the Carpenters Union. Invoking the bipartite arbitration procedure, the Laborers filed a grievance with the Grievance Review Subcommittee of the National Maintenance Agreement Policy Committee. Brock responded that the Subcommittee lacked authority to arbitrate the matter. The Subcommittee disagreed and sustained the grievance and filed suit under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185. The district judge determined that the Subcommittee had authority and issued an order enforcing the decision. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The grievance concerns which of two unions was entitled to perform the scaffolding work at the chemical plant, a jurisdictional dispute, so the Subcommittee had no authority over the matter and its decision must be vacated. View "Brock Industrial Services, LLC v. Laborers' International Union of North America Construction & General Laborers Local 100" on Justia Law

Cherry drove into a Markham, Illinois parking lot to obtain cocaine that his supplier had just picked up at O’Hare airport. Unbeknownst to Cherry, his supplier had been arrested picking up the cocaine and was cooperating with DEA agents. Cherry was arrested mid‐deal and eventually sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Cherry’s arguments that the agents lacked probable cause to arrest him and search his vehicle and failed to preserve exculpatory evidence. The informant did not have any history of cooperation but was not an anonymous tipster. He was implicating himself in a drug deal and was motivated to cooperate. Agents obtained significant detailed information that was corroborated as events unfolded. With respect to the car search, the court upheld a finding that the drugs were in plain view after Cherry opened the door while trying to flee. In any case, agents were entitled to open the door to conduct a limited protective sweep, so the drugs were admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. Regarding an officer’s sale of his personal camera, which had been used to photograph the evidence, the court noted that the defense never sought to inspect the camera or its metadata until long after the suppression hearing nor did Cherry ask the government to preserve the data. In any case, any debate about the order in which the photographs were taken and whether the bag was opened or closed was irrelevant. View "United States v. Cherry" on Justia Law

In 2010, Burmester applied for disability benefits alleging a 2008 onset of her disability. She described degenerative disc disease, pseudo-gout in her left knee, osteoarthritis in both knees and left thumb, a heart condition, and depression. Burmester’s education included one year of technical college; she worked as a hand-packager for many years. The application was denied. At a hearing, Burmester testified that her husband helped her out of bed, did the cooking, cleaning, and went grocery shopping and a friend helped with cleaning. Burmester was able to go to church; out to dinner once a month; use the computer to check her email and social media; and let her dog out. Following a remand, the ALJ again found that Burmester had the residual function capacity to perform light work, and was mentally limited to simple, routine, repetitive tasks requiring only simple work-related decisions and no more than occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the general public. Based on the testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ found that Burmester could not continue her past relevant work but that a significant number of jobs existed in the national economy that Burmester could perform—such as router, price marker, or routing clerk. The district court and Seventh Circuit upheld the ALJ’s decision. The ALJ did not improperly evaluate Burmester’s credibility, nor erroneously reject the opinions of medical experts. The ALJ’s opinion that Burmester was not disabled was supported by substantial evidence. View "Burmester v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

West claimed that the addition of a fiber optic communications wire to a utilities transmission tower on his property exceeded the scope of the easement that authorized the tower. West sued both Charter Communications, whose subsidiary installed the wire, and Louisville Gas and Electric Company, which owns the tower and is a party to the easement. The district court dismissed the claims against Charter, concluding that the addition of Charter’s communications wire to the tower is compatible with the scope and purpose of the easement and consequently does not violate the terms of the easement agreement nor does it amount to an unconstitutional taking of West’s property. Wishing to appeal that ruling, West entered into an agreement providing that he would voluntarily dismiss his claims against Louisville while reserving the right to revive them if the Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of the claims against Charter. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The conditional dismissal of West’s claims against Louisville rendered the judgment non-final. West could have asked the court to enter a final judgment as to the claims against Charter under Rule 54(b) or could have sought permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). View "West v. Charter Communications, Inc." on Justia Law

Officer Sweeney pulled Lewis over for following too closely. Sweeney processed a warning while Lewis, who seemed unusually nervous, sat in the squad car. After learning Lewis was on federal supervised release for a cocaine conviction, Sweeney requested a drug‐sniffing dog roughly 5 minutes into the stop. About 10 minutes and 50 seconds after Lewis pulled over, Sweeney handed him a warning. About 10 seconds later, a drug‐sniffing dog and its handler approached Lewis’s car. The dog alerted. Sweeney searched Lewis’s car and found heroin. Lewis was charged with possession with intent to distribute heroin. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of his motion to suppress. The officer had lawful grounds to initiate the traffic stop; it is irrelevant whether Lewis actually committed a traffic offense because Sweeney had a reasonable belief that he did so. Officer Sweeney did not unjustifiably prolong the traffic stop past the time reasonably required to complete the mission of issuing a warning; any delay beyond the routine traffic stop to allow the dog to sniff was justified by independent reasonable suspicion. View "United States v. Lewis" on Justia Law