This case concerns creditor CenterPoint Properties Trust's appeals from bankruptcy court orders in the Chapter 11 case of debtor Olde Prairie Block Owner, LLC, which owns real estate near McCormick Place intended for hotel development. The appeals challenged the denial of CenterPoint's motion to lift the automatic stay, the approval of debtor-in-possession financing secured by a superpriority priming lien, and related orders on amending findings and enforcing conditions. The district court dismissed the appeals of the DIP financing orders for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and affirmed the remaining orders, reasoning that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding an equity cushion in the property, conditioning denial of the stay on payment of taxes and code compliance, and interpreting its own prior orders.
The case concerned pro se debtor Sidney R. Miller's appeal of a bankruptcy court order dismissing his Chapter 13 petition for failure to file required documents within the 45-day period mandated by 11 U.S.C. § 521(i). The bankruptcy court had continued the matter for one week after the deadline passed to allow Miller to submit the documents but later dismissed the case, finding that the filings were untimely and that no extension had been granted, with the dismissal entered nunc pro tunc. The district court reversed, holding that the continuance effectively constituted a request-based extension under § 521(i)(3), which permits a judge to extend the deadline, and that the nunc pro tunc designation improperly altered substantive rights. The matter was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.
The case involved unions Local 727 and the Carpenters suing the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority (MPEA) and its trustee, claiming that 2010 amendments to the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority Act regulating wages, work jurisdiction, and contractor requirements for trade shows at McCormick Place were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) or violated federal and state law. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in part to the unions on their NLRA preemption claims, holding that the amendments did not qualify for the market participant exception because they dictated terms to third-party contractors and exhibitors rather than acting as a proprietary participant; it denied other federal claims, struck remaining federal issues as moot, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power
This case involved an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision finding that a debt owed by Richard Abrham to Casablanca Lofts LLC was nondischargeable in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The debt stemmed from a prior arbitration award against Abrham and his partners for breach of contract and fraud in a construction project, where they made misrepresentations about how a deposit would be used for materials and subcontractors. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to Casablanca after the parties stipulated to the arbitration findings, and the district court affirmed. The core reasoning was that Abrham, as a partner who shared in profits from the deposit without disclosure and had the right to benefit from the partnership's actions, could not discharge the debt even under a strict standard requiring direct involvement in the fraud.
In Curtis v. Wilks, plaintiffs Tod Curtis, First United Trust Company, and Elto Restaurant, Inc. sued defendants under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) for alleged violations of their First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as under the federal RICO statute, claiming a conspiracy to deprive them of property in Mount Prospect, Illinois through improper redevelopment practices. Defendants moved for summary judgment under Rule 56. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It first struck the declarations and reports of plaintiffs' proposed experts William Rotolo and Kevin Chick, finding that neither qualified under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards because Rotolo lacked current relevant experience in municipal planning and Chick lacked engineering qualifications or reliable methodology to opine on structural damage causation or repair costs. The court applied strict compliance with Local Rule 56.1 in evaluating the parties' factual submissions.
Se-Kure Controls sued Diam USA and related parties for infringing its U.S. Patent No. RE37,590 E on a retractable sensor assembly for retail security alarm systems. The defendants moved for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103, arguing the patent was obvious in light of two earlier patents: Se-Kure’s own U.S. Patent No. 5,172,098, which disclosed an alarm system with sensors and a retractable cord, and U.S. Patent No. 4,989,805, which described a retractable reel assembly. The court granted the motion, holding that the ’590 patent claims were an obvious combination of the prior art that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make, and that secondary considerations such as commercial success and copying did not overcome the strong obviousness showing.