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

Eric Kyereme was indicted on five counts of wire fraud for misleading investors in his company, Sika Capital Management, LLC. He solicited $200,000 for the "Alpha Fund," which he lost through poor trading. Instead of informing investors, he created fake account statements to show positive returns. Kyereme pleaded guilty to one count but disputed his dealings with Da Zhou, a business associate who invested $133,000, allegedly for shares in RestoreFlow Allografts (RFA). The government claimed Kyereme used Zhou's money to cover Alpha Fund losses, while Kyereme argued it was a legitimate transaction.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held an evidentiary hearing and found that Kyereme defrauded Zhou. The court determined that Zhou's $133,000 investment was part of the wire fraud scheme, increasing the total loss amount to $335,500. This led to a higher offense level and a sentencing range of 41 to 51 months. The court sentenced Kyereme to 36 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and ordered $185,500 in restitution, including $135,500 to Zhou.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no clear error in the district court's determination that the Zhou transaction was part of the wire fraud scheme. The court noted that the evidence, including the membership agreement and the Primrose operating agreement, supported the finding that Kyereme defrauded Zhou. The appellate court also held that Kyereme had sufficient notice that the district court would rule on the Zhou transaction at the final sentencing hearing. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed Kyereme's sentence. View "United States v. Kyereme" on Justia Law

Republic Airways Inc. and Hyannis Air Service, Inc. entered into individual employment agreements with pilot candidates, offering incentives in exchange for employment commitments. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters and its local unions argued that these agreements violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) because they were not bargained for and fell outside the scope of the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between the parties.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana dismissed the unions' complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, determining that the dispute was "minor" under the RLA and thus subject to arbitration. The court found that the resolution of the dispute required interpretation of the CBAs, which mandated arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the employment agreements were arguably justified by the broad discretionary language in the CBAs, which allowed the carriers to offer incentives and determine their terms. The court emphasized the RLA's strong preference for arbitration and concluded that the carriers' arguments were not frivolous or insubstantial. Therefore, the dispute was classified as minor and subject to arbitration, not federal court jurisdiction. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the unions' state law claim. View "International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Republic Airways Inc." on Justia Law

Ronald Williams, a driver for hire, was convicted of sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. In April 2018, Williams transported two teenage girls, Hannah Brown and Cyan Smith, for commercial sex work at the behest of his co-defendant, Kennedy Spencer. Both girls were minors and vulnerable, with histories of mental health challenges. Spencer arranged for the girls to engage in commercial sex acts, and Williams facilitated their transportation and received a portion of the earnings.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, tried Williams and Spencer jointly. On November 1, 2022, a jury found both men guilty of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking and sex trafficking of both Hannah and Cyan. Williams appealed his conviction, arguing insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that Williams bore a heavy burden to overturn the jury's verdict, requiring the record to be devoid of evidence supporting guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found sufficient evidence that Williams knew Spencer intended to use the girls for commercial sex acts, facilitated their transportation, and profited from their exploitation. Additionally, the court determined that Williams had a reasonable opportunity to observe that both girls were minors, satisfying the statutory requirements under 18 U.S.C. § 1591 and § 1594.The Seventh Circuit affirmed Williams's conviction, concluding that the jury had sufficient evidence to find him guilty of sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. View "USA v Williams" on Justia Law

Wesley K. White, Jr. pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The government agreed to recommend a sentence at the low end of the guidelines range as part of a plea agreement. However, while awaiting sentencing, White violated federal law again, leading the government to seek release from its sentencing recommendation. The district court granted this motion and sentenced White to a prison term exceeding the guidelines range.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois initially handled the case. White had previously pleaded guilty to a felony firearms offense in Illinois state court and was on probation when further violations occurred. During a compliance check in 2018, authorities found a semiautomatic rifle and other firearm accessories in his residence. In 2020, White was seen in a Facebook Live video handling firearms at a shooting range. He admitted to firing the guns but claimed they were not at his residence. Subsequent searches revealed ammunition and a gun case. White was indicted for his 2018 and 2020 conduct and pleaded guilty.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that White breached the plea agreement by violating federal law through marijuana use and firearm possession. The district court did not err in its factual findings or in allowing the government to withdraw from its sentencing recommendation. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an above-guidelines sentence, considering White's history and the § 3553(a) factors. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in full. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

Michael Wood incurred credit card debt with Pentagon Federal Credit Union (PenFed) and defaulted. PenFed reported the debt to credit reporting agencies, but Wood disputed the debt in writing. PenFed investigated and concluded the debt was valid. Later, Security Credit Services, LLC (SCS) purchased Wood's debt from PenFed and reported it as delinquent to a credit reporting agency without noting Wood's dispute. Wood alleged that SCS violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by failing to communicate that he disputed the debt.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of SCS. The court found that Wood had standing to sue but concluded that PenFed reasonably interpreted Wood's lack of response to its letter as an indication that he no longer disputed the debt. Therefore, the court determined that SCS did not know and should not have known that Wood still disputed the debt.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Wood had standing because the harm he alleged was analogous to defamation, a recognized common law injury. The court also found that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether SCS should have known about Wood's dispute. Specifically, the court noted conflicting evidence about SCS's understanding of what constitutes a disputed account and whether SCS shared PenFed's interpretation that Wood's silence meant he no longer disputed the debt. The court concluded that SCS's failure to communicate Wood's dispute could be considered negligent under the FDCPA. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Wood v. Security Credit Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Shawn Riley, a former prisoner at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF), filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against WSPF’s Health Services Manager, Jolinda Waterman, and Nurse Practitioner Sandra McArdle. Riley alleged that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, violating the Eighth Amendment. Riley experienced chronic pain and sought specific medical treatments, including high-top shoes recommended by specialists. Despite receiving various treatments, including medications, physical therapy, and custom orthotics, Riley claimed that his pain persisted and that the defendants ignored specialist recommendations.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and denied Riley’s motions to appoint counsel. The court found that the defendants were not deliberately indifferent to Riley’s medical needs, noting that they provided extensive medical care and followed many of the specialists' recommendations. The court also concluded that Riley’s requests for special shoes were reviewed and denied by the Special Needs Committee (SNC) and that the defendants' actions did not amount to deliberate indifference.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the defendants did not ignore the specialists' recommendations and provided adequate medical care. The court also found that the defendants' refusal to allow Riley to purchase shoes from outside the approved catalog did not constitute deliberate indifference. Additionally, the court upheld the denial of Riley’s motion to appoint counsel, determining that Riley was competent to litigate his case and that the case did not present complexities that necessitated appointed counsel. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Riley v. Waterman" on Justia Law

In February 2018, two men invaded a home in Rockford, Illinois, resulting in the death of Julian Young, Jr. and the escape of Jasmine Meneweather. Meneweather initially provided general descriptions of the assailants but no specific identities. Later, she sent a photo of one perpetrator to Detective Eric Harris, but the person was not identified. Over a year later, Harris received another photo from Young’s aunt, identifying the assailants as brothers Cortez and Shawnqiz Lee. Meneweather later identified Shawnqiz Lee in a photo array. Despite Lee’s alibi of being at work during the crime, he was arrested in November 2019 based on a criminal complaint and a judge-issued arrest warrant. A grand jury indicted Lee, but subsequent DNA evidence did not match him. Lee was released in December 2020 after the charges were dismissed.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to the police officers, reasoning that probable cause existed based on Meneweather’s identification, which is an absolute defense to Lee’s claims. Lee appealed, arguing that the officers lacked probable cause and that they recklessly withheld material facts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that probable cause existed based on Meneweather’s identification, which was sufficient to support the arrest warrant. The court also found that the officers did not recklessly withhold material facts that would have negated probable cause. Additionally, the grand jury indictment provided prima facie evidence of probable cause, which Lee failed to rebut. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the police officers, concluding that probable cause was an absolute defense to Lee’s Fourth Amendment and state-law claims. View "Lee v Harris" on Justia Law

Caroline Retzios was terminated by Epic Systems Corporation after she refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19, citing religious objections. She filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming that Epic was required to accommodate her religious beliefs. Epic requested the district court to compel arbitration based on an agreement Retzios had signed, which the court granted, subsequently dismissing the suit.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case after referring it to arbitration, despite Epic's request for a stay. According to the Federal Arbitration Act, a stay should have been issued instead of a dismissal when arbitration is requested. This dismissal allowed Retzios to appeal the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the district court erred in dismissing the suit instead of staying it. However, the appellate court proceeded with the case due to the district court's actions. The appellate court found that Retzios's claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement she had signed with Epic. The court rejected Retzios's arguments against the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, including her claims of promissory estoppel and waiver. The court also found her objections to arbitration to be frivolous and granted Epic's motion for sanctions, directing Retzios to reimburse Epic for its legal expenses incurred on appeal. The decision of the district court was affirmed, with sanctions imposed on Retzios. View "Retzios v Epic Systems Corp." on Justia Law

Blake Stewardson was arrested for driving under the influence on January 1, 2018, and taken to Cass County Jail. While intoxicated, he directed profanities at police and resisted during intake, leading Officer Titus to slam his head against a wall twice, causing a cut. Titus then performed a leg sweep, causing Stewardson to fall and hit his head. Later, Titus opened a cell door into Stewardson and performed a hip toss. Stewardson sued Titus and Biggs, alleging excessive force and failure to intervene.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana granted summary judgment to the defendants on many claims but allowed two to proceed to trial: one against Titus for excessive force and one against Biggs for failing to intervene. The jury found Titus liable and awarded $400,000 in compensatory damages and $850,000 in punitive damages. Biggs was found not liable for failing to intervene. Titus appealed the punitive damages award, and Stewardson cross-appealed the summary judgment decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the jury's punitive damages award against Titus, finding it not unconstitutionally excessive given the reprehensibility of his conduct, the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages, and comparable cases. The court also affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Biggs, concluding that he did not violate clearly established law regarding excessive force or failure to intervene. Additionally, the court upheld the summary judgment on Stewardson's Monell claim against Cass County, finding insufficient evidence of an unconstitutional custom. View "Stewardson v. Titus" on Justia Law

Tara Osborn, a technical support specialist, was terminated by JAB Management Services, Inc., which provides prison healthcare. Osborn sued her former employer, alleging violations of state and federal employment law, including a claim that JAB Management failed to compensate her for overtime work as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). JAB Management moved for summary judgment on the overtime claim.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of JAB Management. The court found that Osborn failed to comply with local rules in her response to the summary judgment motion, leading to her amended response being struck. Consequently, the court deemed JAB Management's facts as admitted and found that Osborn did not provide sufficient evidence to show she worked overtime.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Osborn did not meet her initial burden of proving she worked uncompensated overtime. The court noted that Osborn's evidence was vague, conclusory, and lacked specificity regarding her work hours. Additionally, her claims were inconsistent with other evidence in the record. The court also found that even under the relaxed just and reasonable inference standard for proving damages, Osborn's evidence was insufficient to establish the amount and extent of her overtime work. Therefore, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of JAB Management. View "Osborn v JAB Management Services, Inc." on Justia Law