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

This case involves a dispute between Zhen Feng Lin, a food delivery driver who was severely injured in a car accident, and his employer's insurance company, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company. After the accident, Lin received a settlement from the at-fault driver's insurance company, and workers' compensation benefits from his employer's insurance carrier, Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Lin later sought additional recovery under his employer's underinsured motorist policy with Hartford Accident.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision that Lin and Hartford Accident had not entered into a "settlement agreement" as defined by the insurance policy. As a result, the court ruled that the policy limits should be reduced by the amount Lin received in workers' compensation benefits. The court also agreed with the district court that Lin should be credited for the amount he paid to settle the workers' compensation lien.Additionally, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Lin's counterclaims for bad faith and breach of contract. The court found no plausible claim supporting the argument that Hartford Accident unreasonably delayed settling Lin's claim. Lin's request for statutory penalties for Hartford Accident's purported delay in handling his claim was also denied.Finally, the court denied both parties' motions for sanctions. Lin's appeal was deemed frivolous in part, but the court exercised its discretion not to impose sanctions. View "Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Lin" on Justia Law

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Israel Juan Miguel Urzua Ortega, a Mexican citizen, petitioned for a review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals that denied his request for withholding of removal. Ortega had illegally reentered the United States and his prior order of removal was reinstated. However, he sought withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, arguing that he would face persecution in Mexico from individuals the Mexican government would not control.Ortega, who spent most of his life in Mexico City, faced multiple threats and attacks, including murder threats from his father's cousin, Tacho, a member of the Sinaloa cartel. He claimed that even while in the U.S., he continued receiving threats. Ortega was arrested in 2021 for driving on a revoked license, and his 2006 removal order was reinstated. He claimed a fear of returning to Mexico, but his claim was denied by an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, who found him ineligible for withholding of removal.The court reviewed both the decisions of the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals. The court applied a highly deferential standard of review and concluded that substantial evidence supported the decisions that Ortega failed to establish that he would be persecuted by groups or individuals that the Mexican government is unwilling or unable to control. The court noted that the Mexican government had been responsive to the prior threats against Ortega, that Tacho was incarcerated in Mexico, and that Ortega had continued to receive threats even while living in the United States. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review. View "Ortega v. Garland" on Justia Law

The case concerns Thomas Osadzinski, who was convicted for providing material support to a terrorist organization. In 2019, Osadzinski, a computer science student, developed a software program to facilitate the rapid duplication of terrorist propaganda videos for ISIS. He shared this program with people he believed were ISIS supporters, taught them how to use it, and used it to assemble and distribute a large collection of ISIS media. Osadzinski appealed his conviction, arguing that it violated the First Amendment because his actions constituted free expression. He also contended that he lacked fair notice that his actions violated the material-support statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed with Osadzinski's arguments. The court held that although Osadzinski's actions could be regarded as expressive activity, this activity was coordinated with or directed by ISIS, a known terrorist organization, and therefore was not protected by the First Amendment. The court also rejected Osadzinski's claim that he lacked fair notice that his actions violated the material-support statute. The court affirmed Osadzinski's conviction, ruling that his conduct fell outside First Amendment protection, clearly violated the material-support statute, and provided a reasonable basis for the jury to return a guilty verdict. View "USA v. Osadzinski" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, made by Shazariyah Hibbett, the defendant, who was sentenced for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The defendant contested his sentence, arguing that the district court had wrongly applied a two-level enhancement under the United States Sentencing Guideline § 3C1.2 for reckless endangerment during flight. Hibbett claimed that he was merely a passenger in a vehicle that evaded police, and he did not encourage the driver to flee.The United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit found that the district court had not erred. The court noted that evidence, including video footage of the vehicle evading police and statements from the driver, supported the enhancement to Hibbett's sentence. The court also rejected Hibbett's argument that the Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 79.1, which pertains to control of trial exhibits, conflicted with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 55. The court stated that Hibbett had not demonstrated how the application of the local rule to his case caused him any harm.Therefore, the court upheld the district court's judgment, affirming Hibbett's sentence. The court also suggested that Hibbett's concerns about Local Rule 79.1 should be directed to the Advisory Committee for the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. View "USA v. Hibbett" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard an appeal from Bulk Transport Corp. against Teamsters Union No. 142 Pension Fund and its Trustees. The dispute originated from two collective-bargaining agreements between Bulk Transport and Teamsters Local 142, active from 2003 to 2006. The Union insisted that Bulk Transport apply one such agreement, the Steel Mill Addendum, to non-steel mill work (LISCO work), which Bulk Transport initially did, subsequently making pension contributions on behalf of the LISCO workers. However, when Bulk Transport lost the LISCO contract, they ceased these contributions, leading to the Pension Fund assessing a withdrawal liability of about $2 million under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA).After arbitration, Bulk Transport paid but demanded a review of the decision. The district court agreed with the arbitrator's ruling that Bulk Transport had adopted the Addendum by conduct, and thus the Pension Fund was entitled to the withdrawal liability. The district court also denied Bulk Transport's request for a refund.The Seventh Circuit, however, reversed the district court's decision. It held that the written agreement, not the practice or conduct, should dictate the terms of pension contributions to multi-employer plans. The written agreement in this case did not cover the LISCO work, and the court rejected the argument that Bulk Transport's conduct altered the substantive terms of the agreement. The court held that the writings were conclusive and that employers and unions could not opt-out of the requirements orally or through their course of conduct. The court affirmed the district court's denial of attorney's fees for the Pension Fund and remanded the case with instructions to order the Pension Fund to repay the withdrawal liability it collected from Bulk Transport. View "Bulk Transport, Corp. v. Teamsters Union Local 142" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Direct Supply, Inc., and the United States of America regarding tax deductions. Direct Supply, a company that assists nursing homes in purchasing equipment, medical supplies, and furniture through a system it calls "Direct Supply DSSI" (DSSI), filed for deductions under §199 of the Internal Revenue Code. This section allowed for deductions based on revenues from the "disposition" of "qualifying production property," which includes software. However, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disallowed these deductions, prompting Direct Supply to sue for a refund.Direct Supply argued that DSSI is the "disposition" of the software that runs the system. However, the IRS and the district court viewed DSSI as a service based on software, not a disposition of software. The court noted that Direct Supply's customers did not possess the software code or a license to use any of DSSI’s software. Furthermore, the majority of the revenue flowing to Direct Supply came from fees that were a percentage of the vendors' sales, rather than anything that measured the value of software.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court and the IRS. The court noted that while DSSI depended on software, it did not "dispose" of that software. The court also pointed out that Direct Supply's receipts were not "directly derived" from the software, as required by the governing regulation, but were instead derived from the goods the vendors sold to the customers. The court affirmed the district court's decision that Direct Supply's deductions under §199 of the Internal Revenue Code were correctly disallowed. View "Direct Supply, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioner, Tony Rogers, convicted of sexually assaulting his daughter, DAR, appealed his conviction alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Rogers claimed his trial lawyer failed to move for in-camera review of DAR’s medical records, which he believed contained information about her mental health that could have impacted the credibility of her testimony. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals rejected Rogers's claim, and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied review.Rogers then filed a federal habeas corpus petition, asserting that the state court decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of established federal law. He contended that his trial counsel's failure to obtain DAR’s medical records or at least file a motion for in camera review violated his rights. The district court denied Rogers's petition, concluding that the state court decision did not contravene federal law and that the state court's application of the federal standard to Rogers's case was not unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court. It found that Rogers's counsel was not ineffective for failing to make a motion for in camera review of DAR’s medical records. The court held that such a motion would have been meritless because Rogers could not make the preliminary showing of the records’ materiality required under state law. The court also found that Rogers's claim that he made a plausible showing for in camera review of DAR’s medical records was based on speculation and devoid of context. The court held that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals' decision was not an unreasonable application of federal law. View "Rogers v. Wells" on Justia Law

In this appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the plaintiff, Kelly Chavez, had been denied supplemental security income due to her various mental and physical impairments. The administrative law judge (ALJ) at a hearing found that Chavez could perform jobs that existed in significant numbers in the economy. This decision was affirmed by the district court, leading to this appeal. Chavez contended that the vocational expert's testimony, which the ALJ relied on, did not provide substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's decision.The vocational expert, Sarah Holmes, testified that a person with Chavez's age, background, and ability could perform several light exertion jobs, such as cleaner, office helper, and storage rental clerk. She used a software program, Job Browser Pro, to estimate the number of jobs, which uses data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.Chavez's main argument was that Holmes did not explain Job Browser Pro's underlying formula, thereby rendering her testimony unreliable. However, the court held that Holmes's testimony provided substantial evidence for the ALJ's finding. The court highlighted that Holmes used a generally accepted source of job numbers, provided a straightforward overview of how the source worked, offered to provide additional information about the source's underlying formula, and identified jobs commonly found in the national economy. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Chavez v. O'Malley" on Justia Law

This case concerns a lawsuit filed by Mark A. Patterson against attorney Howard Howe in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Patterson had been sued by Howe in Indiana state court over an unpaid educational debt. Along with the complaint and summons, Howe served Patterson with four requests for admission under Indiana law, but failed to warn Patterson about the consequences of not responding within thirty days. Patterson answered the complaint but did not respond to the requests for admission. Concurrently, Patterson filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Howe's practice of serving requests for admission without warning him of the consequences violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).The district court granted summary judgment to Patterson, awarding him statutory damages of $1,000 and more than $58,000 in attorney fees and costs. Howe appealed both the merits judgment and the award of fees and costs.The Court of Appeals vacated both judgments and ordered the dismissal of the case. The court held that Patterson lacked standing to bring his claim because he was not concretely harmed by Howe’s alleged statutory violation. Patterson's argument that he would have denied the requests for admission if he had been warned was insufficient to establish a concrete injury. Additionally, his claim that he lost negotiating leverage and was forced to settle for the full amount he allegedly owed was speculative and occurred after he filed his complaint, which meant it could not provide the basis for standing in this case. View "Patterson v. Howe" on Justia Law

LaTonya Foxx, along with two others, was charged and convicted for engaging in a fraudulent tax scheme. Foxx pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud and was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, one year of supervised release, and ordered to pay $1,261,903 in restitution. The scheme involved filing fraudulent tax returns to generate improper refunds for clients and the defendants. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard Foxx's appeal of the restitution order.The court noted that any power to award restitution must come from a statute. In this case, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act authorizes restitution for wire fraud offenses. The court noted that restitution is limited to the actual losses caused by the specific conduct underlying the offense, and the government must establish those losses by a preponderance of the evidence.Foxx argued that the district court failed to adequately delineate the scheme and make specific findings that the losses included in the restitution derived from the same scheme for which she was convicted. The court found no fatal deficiency in the district court's findings and concluded that Foxx failed to demonstrate a plain error. The court held that Foxx could be ordered to pay restitution for all the losses she caused during the scheme, not just those relating to the specific wire transactions to which she pleaded guilty. The court affirmed the restitution order. View "United States v. Foxx" on Justia Law