Defined Space, Inc., a photography firm, sued Lakeshore East, LLC and related defendants for using its photographs in marketing without providing required attribution under a licensing agreement. The suit alleged violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Lanham Act, Copyright Act, and Illinois deceptive trade practices statutes. The court denied the motion to dismiss the Lanham Act claim and certain other counts, finding they were not preempted by the Copyright Act or were otherwise viable, but granted dismissal of three state-law counts on preemption grounds because they duplicated copyright infringement claims. The court also denied the request for a more definite statement on the remaining counts, concluding the allegations provided sufficient notice.
This case is a § 1983 lawsuit brought by Johnny Betts against Chicago police officers and the City of Chicago alleging false arrest along with related claims including unlawful search, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court addressed the plaintiff's motions in limine seeking to exclude evidence that the arrest occurred in a high-narcotic area and various prior arrests and convictions of Betts and his witnesses. The court denied the first motion, finding the location evidence relevant to the officers' probable-cause determination under the totality of circumstances. On the second motion, the court permitted limited use of Betts' prior arrest history solely to assess damages on the emotional-distress claim, subject to a limiting instruction, while noting that most of the other convictions were not being offered by the defense.
Plaintiff Peggy LeGrande, a flight attendant, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained when her Southwest Airlines flight encountered severe turbulence, alleging that FAA air traffic controllers negligently failed to warn the pilot of forecasted turbulence. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The court denied LeGrande's motion and granted the United States' motion, finding no liability. The core reasoning was that controllers followed FAA procedures by broadcasting the relevant Central Weather Advisory once over the radio as required by the ATC Handbook, that other weather products like the Meteorological Impact Statement did not trigger an additional duty to warn given controllers' primary responsibilities and workload, and that the weather information was already available to the airline's dispatcher and pilots through pre-flight packages and other channels.
The case concerned a painters' union and associated benefit funds suing employer Norman Liles and his companies under ERISA and the LMRA to recover allegedly unpaid dues, assessments, and contributions required by a 2001 collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, arguing that Liles never validly terminated the agreement and that his successor entities were bound by it, while Liles contended he had withdrawn effective April 30, 2004, pursuant to an oral understanding with a union representative. The court held that the parol evidence rule did not bar testimony about the oral agreement permitting termination at will and identified genuine disputes of material fact regarding the timing and extent of any ongoing obligations after 2004 as well as the liability of the corporate defendants.
David Barber sued LM Property and Casualty Insurance Company to enforce a $275,000 arbitration award for underinsured motorist benefits after settling his accident claim with the other driver for $58,000. LMPC moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), and the court granted the motion. The court held that the policy language made arbitration awards binding only up to the $20,000 Illinois financial responsibility limit, giving LMPC an implied right to reject the excess and proceed to trial, consistent with Illinois appellate precedent. The court further found the provision not unconscionable or against public policy due to lack of mutuality, and dismissed the claim for statutory damages because LMPC owed nothing after offsets.
Chicago Joe's Tea Room planned to open an adult entertainment business with semi-nude dancing and liquor sales in the Village of Broadview and applied for a required special use zoning permit in December 2006. The Village denied the application under a zoning code provision barring alcohol sales at adult businesses, prompting Chicago Joe's to sue the Village and its trustees, raising First Amendment challenges to two zoning ordinances and seeking declaratory, injunctive, and damages relief. The court had previously declared one ordinance an invalid content-based restriction on speech. The Village then moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing that other unchallenged regulations and a later state statute would independently bar the business at the site, similar to the situation in Harp Advertising. The court denied the motion, holding that Chicago Joe's had acquired vested rights under Illinois law, could potentially comply with the other regulations through the zoning process, and thus had standing for the court to grant appropriate relief.
