District Court, N.D. Illinois — appointed by George W. Bush
Vazquez v. Central States Joint Board
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2008-02-29 · cited 14×
This case involves four plaintiffs, former union officers and members, suing multiple union entities and individual officers under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), RICO, and Illinois state contract law. The claims center on the plaintiffs' 2004 terminations from various union positions, alleged violations of union constitutions and bylaws regarding due process and democratic procedures, and claims of improper disciplinary actions and financial misconduct. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing with prejudice the LMRDA Section 101(a)(1) claims, dismissing without prejudice the Section 101(a)(5) claims in part, the RICO claims, and certain state contract claims, while allowing other claims to proceed. The reasoning focused on statutory applicability, pleading deficiencies, arbitration agreement requirements under federal and state law, and timeliness issues for challenging arbitration awards.
labor & employmentcivil rights
Jacobs v. Xerox Corp. Long Term Disability Income Plan
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2007-10-15 · cited 6×
The case involved David Jacobs suing the Xerox Corporation Long Term Disability Income Plan under ERISA for civil statutory penalties under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c), alleging failure to provide plan documents upon request after prior rulings had resolved other counts. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court ruled for the defendant on the remaining claim. The decision rested on findings that requests for documents were sent to human resources personnel rather than the designated plan administrator at the address specified in the summary plan document, with no evidence of proper requests to the administrator or grounds for estoppel. The court also noted the absence of prejudice from any delay in document production as relevant to whether penalties should be imposed.
labor & employmentprocedure
Byrd-Tolson v. Supervalu, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2007-06-12 · cited 16×
This case involved a personal injury claim by Illinois resident Debra Byrd-Tolson against Moran Foods, Inc., the operator of a Chicago grocery store, arising from a slip-and-fall incident on June 6, 2004, in which she allegedly fell on grapes or a wet substance in one of the aisles. After initially suing the wrong defendant and amending her complaint to add Moran, the plaintiff sought damages under Illinois tort law. The district court granted Moran's motion for summary judgment on two independent grounds. First, the suit was untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. Second, the plaintiff failed to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on the elements of her negligence claim, including that Moran knew or should have known of the alleged hazard. The court treated the motion as one for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and applied the Local Rule 56.1 framework to the record.
torts & liabilityprocedure
Flentye v. Kathrein
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2007-04-18 · cited 42×
In Flentye v. Kathrein, plaintiffs Tim Flentye and his real estate company sued competitors Michael Kathrein and his LLC for registering domain names like flentye.com and timflentye.com, using meta tags with the Flentye name, and publishing allegedly false and defamatory statements on websites accusing Flentye of illegal surveillance, ethical lapses, and other misconduct. The claims included violations of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and Lanham Act, Illinois deceptive trade practices, defamation, misappropriation of identity, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, allowing several claims to proceed while dismissing others for insufficient pleading or other deficiencies. The court reasoned that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged bad faith domain registration and use after a prior UDRP arbitration ordered transfer of the domains, that certain defamation statements were adequately pled despite some specificity issues, and that corporate status did not automatically bar all claims, but found some counts required more particularity or failed to state a viable cause of action.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability
Beary Landscaping, Inc. v. Ludwig
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2007-03-28 · cited 5×
The case involves landscape contracting companies and their owners suing the Director of the Illinois Department of Labor in his official capacity, alleging that the Department's enforcement of the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act violates their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent enforcement of the Act's prevailing wage requirements on their public projects in eight specified Illinois counties. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, for the court to abstain in light of a parallel state-court proceeding. The court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, analyzing the claims under standards for substantive and procedural due process while noting issues such as property interests, statutes of limitations, and the historical context of Lochner-era precedents.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatorycivil rights
Higbee v. Malleris
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2007-01-16 · cited 6×
The case involves plaintiff Rosemary Higbee suing her former attorneys in Illinois state court for professional malpractice arising from their representation in an underlying federal employment discrimination lawsuit against her former employer. Defendants removed the malpractice action to federal district court, prompting plaintiff's motion to remand it back to the Circuit Court of Cook County. The court granted the remand motion, holding that the case presents only state-law claims that do not involve a substantial disputed federal question sufficient to confer "arising under" subject-matter jurisdiction. The reasoning rests on precedents establishing that attorney malpractice suits tied to federal litigation ordinarily belong in state court, as they do not require resolution of significant federal issues and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over related Title VII matters.
proceduretorts & liability