John Francis Grady

The case involved plaintiffs TechnoLines and Echelon suing defendant GST Auto-Leather for patent infringement of laser-etching technology, along with trade-secret misappropriation, breach of a non-disclosure agreement, and unjust enrichment, arising from failed negotiations over licensing the technology for use in automotive leather interiors. The court granted GST's motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice, finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over GST in Illinois because the defendant's contacts were insufficient to support specific jurisdiction and that venue was improper under the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). The court further held that the non-patent claims could not proceed under supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of the federal claims and allowed plaintiffs an opportunity to amend to allege diversity jurisdiction.

procedure

This case involves a dispute between two insurance companies, Public Service Mutual Insurance Company and Capitol Transamerica Corporation, over their respective duties to defend their mutual insured, Kenard Management Corporation, in an underlying wrongful death lawsuit stemming from a tenant's fatal fall from a porch due to allegedly non-compliant guardrails. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment seeking declaratory relief on whether Capitol's commercial general liability policy was excess to PSM's policy or whether the policies were co-primary, with only the duty to defend at issue. The court granted PSM's motion in part and denied Capitol's motion, holding that the policies' conflicting 'other insurance' clauses were mutually repugnant under Illinois law and thus required both insurers to share the defense obligations as co-primary. The reasoning centered on the plain language of the policies' excess and other-insurance provisions, rejecting arguments that a real estate property management endorsement in Capitol's policy altered the priority analysis.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case is a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by the estates of Michael Ortiz and May Molina, along with Shannon Guzman, against Chicago police officers following a 2004 search of their residence based on a confidential informant, resulting in arrests for drug possession, Molina's death in custody, and Ortiz's detention. The court granted summary judgment to the remaining individual defendants on all pending claims, including false arrest, unlawful detention, unreasonable search and seizure, malicious prosecution, and related state-law claims. The core reasoning was that after in camera review confirming the informant's existence and information provided to officers for the warrants, there were no genuine issues of material fact supporting the plaintiffs' allegations of constitutional violations or other misconduct by the officers.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant John T. Ambrose's motion for release pending appeal after his conviction on two counts for knowingly converting and disclosing protected information about a witness in the federal witness protection program, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 3521(b)(3). The court denied the motion, finding that Ambrose failed to demonstrate a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal or a new trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1)(B). The reasoning centered on the strength of the evidence, including Ambrose's own admissions at trial that he had converted and disclosed the information (albeit without the specific criminal intent he claimed was required), the lack of prejudice from alleged errors, the unlikelihood that constitutional challenges would succeed, and the sufficiency of the jury instructions and sentence. The court concluded that any potential appellate relief on sentencing would not occur before Ambrose served the relevant time.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart suing Craigslist, alleging that its erotic services section constituted a public nuisance by facilitating prostitution, seeking damages and an injunction for costs incurred in related policing. The court granted Craigslist's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The core reasoning was that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes Craigslist from liability for content created by third-party users, as Craigslist did not create or develop the advertisements, and the claims sought to treat it as a publisher or speaker of that content. The court also found that Craigslist's categorization and warnings did not amount to arranging or directing prostitution under relevant laws.

criminal lawfree speechtorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Song v. PIL, L.L.C., plaintiff Jin Song, an inventor, sued defendants PIL, L.L.C. and Publications International, Ltd. in a diversity action alleging they failed to pay royalties due under a 2003 Asset Purchase Agreement for the sale of assets related to the Story Reader electronic book product line, including intellectual property and inventory. Song asserted six counts: breach of contract (Count I, which was not challenged), plus unjust enrichment/quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, conversion, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and common-law fraud (Counts II-VI). The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss Counts II through VI with prejudice. The core reasoning was that the contract governed the parties' relationship so equitable claims were unavailable, conversion did not apply to the alleged royalty obligations, and the fraud-based claims (including under the Consumer Fraud Act) failed to satisfy the particularity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) or allege an egregious scheme.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved the Regional Director of the NLRB seeking a preliminary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act against Regal Health and Rehab Center, a nursing home, based on union charges that the employer had interfered with LPNs' efforts to organize and had discriminated against union supporters by terminating several of them. The court granted the petition, ordering Regal to reinstate the terminated employees, cease certain practices, and post notices, pending final Board resolution. The decision rested on findings that the Director was likely to succeed on the merits of claims under Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, drawing from the ALJ's evidentiary hearing and conclusions about threats, surveillance, and retaliatory firings that had chilled union activity among the LPNs. The court also determined that irreparable harm would occur without interim relief to preserve the status quo for collective bargaining rights.

labor & employmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a dispute over patent ownership following the bankruptcy of Compak Corporation and Communion Packaging Company. Plaintiff TCC, as assignee of assets purchased in a bankruptcy sale under 11 U.S.C. § 363, claimed that defendant Johnson improperly retained title to certain patents (including the '106 patent and related Subsequent Patents) that should have belonged to Compak, seeking a constructive trust (Count I) and alleging patent infringement by defendants DuoTeeh (Count II). The district court, reviewing de novo the bankruptcy court's proposed findings, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on both counts. The core reasoning was that TCC failed to establish its claims to the patents in light of the prior sale order and the terms of the relevant license and assignment agreements, with no waiver or other procedural bars preventing the court's consideration of the issues.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned a challenge by Illinois voters to the state's election law governing the timing of a special election to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy created by Barack Obama's resignation. Plaintiffs argued that the Seventeenth Amendment required Governor Quinn to call a special election sooner than the November 2010 general election date set by Illinois Election Code § 5/25-8. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. It held that the Seventeenth Amendment's proviso permits state legislatures to direct the timing of vacancy elections, that Illinois's statute complies with this authority, and that federal election statutes do not restrict states from holding such elections on dates other than the regular November federal election date.

electionsfederal power

In Goldhamer v. Nagode, plaintiffs were arrested at the Taste of Chicago festival for failing to disperse from a protest area near a military recruiting booth after police orders under Chicago Municipal Code § 8-4-010(d), though the charges were later dismissed. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether subsection (d) is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court granted plaintiffs' motion, finding the ordinance facially invalid because it is vague and overbroad, does not provide adequate notice or guidelines to prevent arbitrary enforcement, and is not a narrowly tailored time, place, and manner restriction on speech.

free speechcriminal lawcivil rights

This case involves a dispute between Rubloff Development Group and Kmart Corporation regarding claims arising from subleases of commercial properties during Kmart's Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. Rubloff asserted eight claims for damages, alleging that Kmart's negotiations and threats to reject the leases constituted anticipatory repudiation of the subleases. The bankruptcy court disallowed the claims, and the district court affirmed that decision. The court reasoned that Kmart properly exercised its rights under the Bankruptcy Code to assume and assign the leases rather than reject them, and that Rubloff waived any claims by agreeing to the assignment without reserving rights to pursue damages.

business & regulatoryproperty

This multidistrict litigation involves claims by Argentine residents with hemophilia who allege they contracted HIV or hepatitis C from contaminated factor VIII or IX blood concentrates manufactured by the defendant pharmaceutical companies. The plaintiffs assert negligence in sourcing plasma and manufacturing, as well as fraudulent dumping of untreated products in foreign markets. The court addressed the defendants' motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, seeking to have the claims litigated in Argentina instead of the U.S. federal courts. After analyzing whether Argentina was an available and adequate alternative forum under the relevant procedural standards and balancing private and public interest factors, the court granted the motion to dismiss subject to stipulated conditions ensuring the defendants' amenability to process in Argentine courts and other procedural protections for the plaintiffs.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved lawful permanent residents whose naturalization applications were delayed pending completion of FBI name checks as part of USCIS background investigations. The plaintiffs brought claims under the APA, mandamus, equal protection, and 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), seeking to compel adjudication of their applications and challenging the name-check process and delays. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, holding that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the named plaintiffs' individual claims under § 1447(b). It remanded those applications to USCIS for adjudication within 90 days after receipt of completed name checks, while dismissing broader class claims and certain other counts for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim. The core reasoning was that the statute expressly authorizes district courts to determine naturalization applications when USCIS has not acted within 120 days of the examination, and that individualized remand was the appropriate remedy rather than compelling the FBI or abolishing the name-check requirement.

immigrationprocedurefederal power

The case involved Scholz Design Inc. suing the Jaffes for copyright infringement of a home design called the "Alkazar F 52." The court decided in favor of the defendants, finding them not liable for either direct or contributory infringement. The core reasoning was that the defendants themselves performed no copying of the protected design, which was instead done by their architect, and there was no evidence that the defendants knew of any infringing activity by the architect.

property

This case involved a teacher at a Chicago public school for inmates who sued the Board of Education and Cook County, alleging that tuberculosis screenings in 2004 and 2005 and a 2002 memorandum about his meningitis diagnosis improperly disclosed his personal medical information. The plaintiff claimed violations of his constitutional right to privacy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as Illinois common-law torts for public disclosure of private facts, intrusion upon seclusion, and loss of privacy. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint in full. It reasoned that there is no private right of action under HIPAA, the disclosures did not establish a constitutional privacy violation, certain state-law claims were time-barred, and the allegations failed to show more than negligence or to support municipal liability under § 1983.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a dispute over attorneys' fees in a securities class action lawsuit. The court issued an addendum clarifying that its approach to fee awards aligns with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which caps total fees and expenses at a reasonable percentage of the damages and prejudgment interest actually paid to the class. The opinion explains that the statute requires determining this percentage after the recovery amount has been established, rather than at the time class counsel is appointed. It draws support from the advisory committee notes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and a Ninth Circuit decision emphasizing that fees must be measured by results actually achieved for class members.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a class action securities fraud suit brought by shareholders against three officers of Marchfirst, Inc., alleging that the defendants made materially false public statements that inflated the company's stock price. Marchfirst filed for bankruptcy several months after the complaint was filed. The court approved an $18 million class settlement, finding it reasonable in light of the uncertainties of trial and potential difficulties in collecting a larger judgment, with no objections from class members. On attorneys' fees and expenses, the court reduced the requested expense reimbursement by disallowing separate recovery for computer-assisted legal research, secretarial overtime, excessive hotel costs, and certain other items, treating them as overhead or already covered by fees.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves former employer and employee participants in a multiple-employer benefits trust who sought ownership of proceeds from stock the trust received and sold after the demutualization of Canada Life and Sun Life insurance companies that funded death benefits under the plan. Plaintiffs claimed an ownership interest in the approximately $5 million in proceeds and alleged violations of ERISA, RICO, and common law when the trust retained the funds instead of distributing pro rata shares upon participants' withdrawal. The court granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the stock ownership issue and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion, ruling that the participants had no ownership interest. The core reasoning was that the trust documents expressly treat such demutualization proceeds as experience gains or surplus to be retained by the trust, with withdrawal distributions limited to the insurance policies and other specified assets, consistent with the plan's design under IRC § 419A(f)(6) and ERISA.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatorytaxesproperty

This case involves former night-shift employees of a nursing care facility who sued their employer and its administrator for unpaid wages under the FLSA, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, claiming they were not permitted to use their unpaid meal breaks for personal purposes and were effectively on-call. The employer asserted a counterclaim alleging breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty based on the employees sleeping during work hours and sought recovery of wages paid after the alleged breach. The court dismissed the counterclaim, holding that Illinois law does not treat sleeping on the job as a breach of the duty of loyalty owed by employees. It also dismissed the employees' FLSA retaliation claim arising from the counterclaim, concluding that the counterclaim was not baseless. The court denied the employees' request for attorneys' fees related to the counterclaim.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case concerned the determination of attorney fees and costs to be awarded to Smith System Manufacturing Company after prevailing in defense of Bretford Manufacturing Inc.'s trade dress claim under the Lanham Act. The court applied the lodestar approach from Hensley v. Eckerhart, requiring the fee applicant to document time spent on specific tasks rather than using block billing, and to account for partial success. Due to inadequate records and the limited success on the fee petition itself, the court reduced the requested amounts and awarded Smith $214,459 in fees plus $22,034.19 in costs.

procedurebusiness & regulatory