In this bankruptcy adversary proceeding, Fibre Form Corporation sought a declaratory judgment that an account receivable owed to the debtor Nova Tool & Engineering was held in constructive trust for its benefit because the receivable allegedly resulted from the debtor's misuse of Fibre Form's misappropriated trade secrets, excluding it from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(d). The Chapter 11 trustee moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that the receivable is property of the estate. The reasoning was that under Indiana law, a constructive trust is merely an equitable remedy that does not create a property interest until imposed by a court, and no such trust had been imposed pre-petition; moreover, recognizing an unadjudicated constructive trust would conflict with bankruptcy's policy of ratable distribution among creditors, following the Sixth Circuit's decision in In re Omegas Group.
This case involves the determination of attorneys' fees in a Title VII class action lawsuit brought by female employees against Uniroyal, Inc., which was settled out of court after the company's debarment from federal contracts. On remand from the Seventh Circuit, the district court addressed three remaining issues: the proper lodestar amount for services before the district court, whether any reduction was needed in the $200,000 quality bonus due to higher appellate fees, and whether the requested appellate fees were excessive. The court calculated a lodestar of $1,547,471 after reviewing detailed time records and adjustments, reduced certain claimed hours for excessiveness and lack of billing judgment, and declined to reduce the quality award while applying a 10% reduction to appellate fees.
This case is a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by federal prisoner Stokes challenging his 1975 conviction for conspiracy to distribute narcotics, claiming he was incompetent to stand trial due to a prior mental health commitment from 1967-1969. After an initial denial, reversal and remand by the Seventh Circuit, additional psychiatric evaluations, record reviews, and hearings, the district court denied the petition. The court reasoned that the trial record showed Stokes could consult with counsel and participate effectively, that he had operated a structured drug distribution enterprise requiring competency, and that psychiatric reports and other evidence established no recurrence of mental health issues after his 1969 discharge, satisfying the appellate mandate.
In McBride v. Soos, plaintiff Arthur J. McBride sued two Elkhart County sheriff's deputies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights and Missouri's extradition statutes by seizing and transporting him from Missouri to Indiana without following required procedures such as prompt judicial hearings, time-limited commitment warrants, and a pre-extradition hearing under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. The district court initially dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, but the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded for trial on the merits. After a bench trial, the court ruled for the defendants on the ground that they lacked personal involvement in the alleged procedural violations, as they had reasonably relied on information from superiors and Missouri officials that McBride had validly waived extradition and that all paperwork was complete.
This case was a class action lawsuit filed by female employees at Uniroyal's Mishawaka plant alleging sex discrimination in hiring, seniority, layoffs, and other employment practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The litigation, which lasted seven years, ended in a settlement providing the plaintiff class with over $9 million in monetary relief plus reinstatement and other systemic changes, with Uniroyal agreeing to pay reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). The court calculated a reasonable fee award by determining the lodestar amount based on documented hours worked and hourly rates, then adjusting for factors including risk, quality of representation, and delay in payment, while crediting an interim payment of $300,000. It ultimately entered judgment for plaintiffs' attorneys in the net amount of $533,679.
This case is a class action Title VII lawsuit brought by female employees against Uniroyal and their union, alleging sex discrimination in employment practices including segregated layoffs, discriminatory starting pay rates, and refusal to consider women for jobs restricted to men. The court had previously entered partial summary judgment establishing a prima facie case of discrimination on those issues based on the company's failure to respond to requests for admissions. Addressing cross-motions for summary judgment on class liability, the court ruled that the prior findings were not dispositive and that the company could present defenses such as business necessity, while also addressing jurisdictional issues over pre-1969 layoffs as potential continuing violations, union liability for discriminatory collective bargaining agreements, and the need to focus on inter-class disparate effects at this stage.
