Joan B. Gottschall

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.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

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.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

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.

torts & liability

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.

labor & employment

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.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

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.

free speechbusiness & regulatorycivil rights

The case involved the Chicago Tribune's FOIA request to the University of Illinois for records on 'Category I' applicants admitted with possible influence from influential individuals, including parents' names and addresses and details of any requests made on their behalf. The University denied the request, citing an Illinois FOIA exemption for information prohibited by federal law, specifically FERPA's provisions on education records. The Tribune sued for a declaration that FERPA did not bar release, and the court granted summary judgment in its favor. The core reasoning was that FERPA conditions federal funding on non-disclosure policies but does not specifically prohibit states from releasing records, as states can choose to forgo funding, and Illinois FOIA exemptions must be narrowly construed.

free speechfederal power

This multidistrict litigation consolidates seventeen class actions by purchasers of plasma-derivative protein therapies against producers CSL and Baxter, along with trade association PPTA, alleging a conspiracy to restrict supply and maintain high prices in violation of Sherman Act Section 1. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the Twombly plausibility standard. The court took the alleged facts as true, including the highly concentrated market, high barriers to entry due to FDA regulation, inelastic demand, commodity-like products, and parallel production cuts following industry meetings and reporting initiatives. It reasoned that these plus factors, combined with sequential parallelism in output reductions and historical context from prior supply shortages, supported a plausible inference of conspiracy rather than independent conduct. The opinion addresses related motions on personal jurisdiction and PPTA's separate grounds but focuses on the sufficiency of the antitrust pleadings.

business & regulatory

The case concerns Vivian J. Renta, a pathologist employed at Cook County Hospital from 1995 to 2004, who sued the County and two supervisors under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and Title VII, alleging race, national origin, and gender discrimination plus retaliation after the County Board terminated her membership and clinical privileges. The court addressed defendants' motion for summary judgment along with their motion to strike portions of Renta's responses to their statement of facts, her additional facts, and certain exhibits. It struck multiple responses that failed to cite evidence properly or explain disputes, deemed various facts admitted, declined to strike other materials for lack of shown prejudice, and resolved authentication and comparator issues before turning to the merits of the discrimination and retaliation claims. The court ultimately granted the summary judgment motion in part and denied it in part.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

Intellect Wireless sued T-Mobile and U.S. Cellular for infringing three patents on methods for sending, transmitting, and receiving picture and video messages between wireless devices. The defendants moved for summary judgment of no direct infringement, contending that the patent claims require separate actors—a message originator, message center, and message recipient—so a single entity could not perform all steps. The court denied the motion, holding that the claims could be read to allow performance by a single actor such as the defendants' devices and that Intellect's earlier interrogatory responses were not binding at this stage. The court also found the motion premature because Intellect had not been given a full opportunity for discovery under Rule 56(f) procedures.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Roselva Chaidez, a lawful permanent resident who pleaded guilty in 2003 to federal mail fraud charges and later filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because neither her attorney nor the court advised her of potential immigration consequences such as deportation. The court addressed whether the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, recognizing such ineffective assistance claims, could apply retroactively to Chaidez's already-final conviction under the framework of Teague v. Lane. Applying Teague's analysis of new rules versus applications of old rules, the court concluded that Padilla announced a new rule of criminal procedure not dictated by prior precedent like Strickland v. Washington. As a result, the rule from Padilla could not be applied retroactively on collateral review, and the petition was denied.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

In Acosta v. Target Corp., plaintiff Richard Acosta sued Target on behalf of himself and a putative class, alleging that Target's 'autosub' program violated the Truth in Lending Act by mailing unsolicited Target VISA cards to replace existing Guest Cards, along with related claims for nondisclosure under TILA and state-law claims including fraud and breach of contract. The case came before the court on Target's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court denied dismissal of the core TILA claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1642, holding that the VISA cards did not qualify as permissible substitutes because the underlying account relationship had not changed in the manner required by Regulation Z; instead, the program functioned as an offer to open a new account, as evidenced by recipients' ability to reject the VISA and retain the Guest Card, along with distinct credit reporting treatment. The opinion also addressed preemption and choice-of-law issues for the remaining claims but did not resolve their ultimate merits at the pleading stage.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from SynQor's non-party subpoena to Huawei Technologies in connection with a pending patent-infringement action in Texas; the subpoena was served on an employee at the Illinois office of Huawei's U.S. subsidiary, Futurewei. SynQor moved to compel, arguing that service on Futurewei was effective on Huawei either directly or as its agent, that Futurewei had control of the requested documents, and that a Rule 30(b)(6) witness should be produced. Applying Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4 and 45 along with Illinois service statutes, the court analyzed whether Futurewei qualified as Huawei's agent for service and whether the parent exercised sufficient control over the subsidiary. The court concluded that SynQor failed to carry its burden of demonstrating an agency relationship or the requisite degree of corporate control, rendering service on Huawei ineffective and precluding compelled production by Futurewei.

procedure

This case arose from a commercial contract dispute in which MacNeil alleged that Cannon supplied defective automobile floor mats that failed to adhere properly, leading MacNeil to assert eight claims including breach of contract, breach of warranties, consumer fraud, and conversion after supplying the mats to Hyundai and BMW. The court addressed Cannon's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or for a more definite statement, as well as a magistrate's recommendation on spoliation of evidence. Applying federal pleading standards and Illinois substantive law, the court found that MacNeil's allegations regarding the contracts, defects, and parties involved provided sufficient notice to survive dismissal on the breach of contract count and denied the alternative request for a more definite statement, while also declining to consider extraneous affidavits or alter the spoliation ruling. The opinion emphasizes that notice pleading does not require detailed factual elaboration and distinguishes between different sets of mats referenced in the pleadings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a class action lawsuit brought by David Rogers, a participant in Baxter International Inc.'s 401(k) plan, against Baxter and related fiduciaries alleging breaches of ERISA fiduciary duties in connection with the plan's offering of the Baxter Common Stock Fund as an investment option. The suit arose after Baxter revised its financial growth commitments in 2002, leading to a decline in its stock price that affected plan participants who had invested in company stock. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, focusing on claims including one alleging violation of ERISA's ten-percent limit on employer securities holdings. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ten-percent claim, reasoning that the plan qualified for the safe harbor defense under ERISA §404(c) because participants exercised independent control over their investment directions, leaving fiduciaries without discretion in executing those instructions.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Norman P. Lupescu, a former TSA employee at Chicago Midway Airport, who sued the TSA for unlawful racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after his termination following seven months of employment. The court considered the TSA's motion for summary judgment, addressing issues such as the admissibility of disciplinary records as hearsay and the requirements for establishing a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework, including the need for background circumstances when the plaintiff is not a member of a protected class and the similarly situated comparator standard. The court denied the motion for summary judgment, finding that the TSA failed to lay a sufficient foundation for the admissibility of certain records and that triable issues of fact remained on both claims.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The ACLU brought a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the Illinois Lobbyist Registration Act's $1,000 registration levy on lobbyists, arguing that the fee exceeded the costs of administering the regulatory scheme and thereby burdened protected speech in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, while also objecting to exemptions for religious and media organizations. After a hearing, the court found that the levy would generate millions in surplus revenue beyond the Secretary's estimated administrative costs of roughly $1.2–1.3 million per year. It held that this excess rendered the fee unconstitutionally excessive as applied to protected lobbying activity. The court therefore enjoined enforcement of the $1,000 fee against the plaintiff classes but declined to address the exemptions claim. It rejected the Secretary's Tax Injunction Act defense, concluding the levy functioned as a regulatory fee rather than a tax.

free speechcivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiffs who invested in Sitara Partners, L.P., a fund managed by defendants Rajiv Patel and Sitara Capital Management, LLC, sued after losing most of their investment due to a 2008 purchase of Freddie Mac stock that allegedly contradicted prior representations about diversification and risk. The eighteen-count complaint asserted federal and state claims including securities violations and fraud. On defendants' motion to dismiss, the court applied pleading standards under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 9(b), requiring particularized allegations for fraud claims by each plaintiff, and evaluated state-law claims under doctrines such as Moorman. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing multiple counts for insufficient particularity, inapplicable exceptions to preemption rules, and respondeat superior liability tied to dismissed claims, while denying dismissal as to others.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an appeal from bankruptcy court decisions disallowing claims by landlord Newcastle Properties against tenant K & P Automotive and its guarantor for alleged unpaid rent and breach of a commercial lease. The bankruptcy court found that the lease required the landlord to complete specified improvements to the primary leased space before the tenant was obligated to vacate an adjacent space or pay additional rent, and that no such improvements were ever made. The district court affirmed, holding that the tenant's continued occupancy of both spaces did not constitute a breach and that admissions from prior state-court proceedings were not binding in the bankruptcy case under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 216.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

Plaintiff Matthew Jackson sued his former employer, Jernberg Industries, under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), alleging that the company's attendance policy interfered with his FMLA rights by requiring a doctor's note for each absence related to his certified wrist condition. Jernberg disciplined and ultimately terminated Jackson for failing to provide such notes, even though he had verbally notified the company and had sufficient FMLA leave remaining. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with Jernberg arguing its policy was a reasonable safeguard against abuse and Jackson contending it violated the FMLA. The court denied Jernberg's motion and granted Jackson's, holding that the policy imposed requirements beyond those permitted under the FMLA and that Jackson was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

labor & employment