Marvin E. Aspen

Facebook sued Teachbook.com LLC alleging trademark infringement, dilution, and related claims, asserting that Teachbook's "TEACHBOOK" mark for a teacher-focused social networking site infringed Facebook's famous "FACEBOOK" mark and created a false affiliation. Teachbook moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and submitted over 300 pages of additional exhibits. The court denied the motion in full, finding that Facebook's complaint adequately alleged the elements of each claim—including mark similarity, likelihood of confusion, and dilution through impairment of distinctiveness—while holding that Teachbook's extra materials were not properly considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion without converting it to summary judgment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Coleman Cable seeking to recover insurance proceeds for the theft of over 900,000 pounds of copper wire from its Florida facility under separate policies from Federal Insurance (covering employee theft) and Travelers Indemnity (covering non-employee theft). Both insurers moved for summary judgment on whether the loss was covered and the amount payable. The court denied Federal's motion, finding disputed facts regarding potential employee involvement and the adequacy of proof for a covered loss. The court granted Travelers' motion, concluding that policy exclusions for inventory shortages without physical evidence or for employee acts barred coverage for the claimed loss.

business & regulatoryproperty

Playboy Enterprises sued Smartitan, Eltex, and George Chan for breach of a product license agreement allowing use of Playboy trademarks in Japan, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference, alleging unauthorized sales, late reports, and unpaid royalties exceeding $300,000. The court dismissed the tortious interference claim against Chan for lack of personal jurisdiction but denied the motions to dismiss the contract and unjust enrichment claims against Smartitan and Eltex. The reasoning was that the companies had sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois through the contract negotiated and performed with Playboy's Chicago-based operations, ongoing communications, royalty payments, and evidence that Eltex may be a successor or alter ego of Smartitan.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves a contract dispute between Citadel Group Limited, a real estate developer, and Washington Regional Medical Center (WRMC) over an agreement to develop a medical office building in Arkansas through a lease-back arrangement. Citadel sued for lost profits under Count II of its amended complaint, alleging WRMC breached the agreement after initial negotiations and an Authorization to Proceed. The court granted WRMC's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that no enforceable contract existed for Citadel's claimed development fee because the proposed terms were not sufficiently definite. The reasoning centered on the fact that key elements like project costs, lease rates, and building size remained contingent on future approvals and market conditions, rendering the formula for damages too uncertain to support a lost profits claim under contract law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Dorothy Davis suing Wells Fargo Bank and Litton Loan Servicing under the Fair Housing Act, alleging that the defendants discriminatorily continued to demand payment on her mortgage and pursued foreclosure despite knowing the original lender had defrauded her in the 1999 loan transaction. The court first struck several of Davis's supporting affidavits for failing to meet procedural requirements under Rule 56. On the merits, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied Davis's cross-motion, reasoning that the defendants did not originate the loan, there was no evidence they were aware of Davis's race during relevant actions, and she failed to establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination or disparate impact under the FHA. The opinion emphasized that prior state court rulings had not invalidated the mortgage or imposed liability on the defendants.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

This case involves a pro se plaintiff, Louise Davenport, who is homeless and indigent, seeking to file a lawsuit without paying fees against the City of Chicago and police officials for alleged constitutional violations, ADA breaches, and torts stemming from her 2007 arrest for trespassing and the subsequent loss of her personal belongings. The court found her indigent and granted the in forma pauperis application. However, it dismissed multiple claims, including those for denial of access to the courts and certain ADA and tort claims, because the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to state plausible claims for relief under the applicable legal standards.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case concerns ERISA claims brought by James Killian, as administrator of his late wife's estate, against health plan entities and her former employer after coverage was denied for certain medical expenses incurred before her death in 2006. The court converted one defendant's motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion and ordered additional briefing on whether that entity was a proper party to the suit. It granted in part and denied in part the summary judgment motion filed by the insurance company regarding compliance with ERISA notification requirements for benefit denials, limiting review to specific appeal letters. The court also granted in part and denied in part the employer's motion to dismiss one count.

healthcarelabor & employment

The case involves Plaintiff Jaime Hernandez's multi-count complaint against Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, various deputies, prosecutors, judges, and attorneys, alleging civil rights violations and common law torts arising from his 2007 arrest at the Daley Center while serving as a court-watcher, subsequent charges including criminal trespass, and his conviction. The court addressed his application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. It granted the IFP request after determining that Hernandez adequately alleged poverty based on his financial affidavit showing low income and significant debts, but dismissed several counts of the complaint for failure to state a claim, judicial or prosecutorial immunity, and other deficiencies under Rule 12(b)(6) standards, while denying the motion for counsel.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case involves third-party claims by Ameriquest Mortgage Co. and Argent Mortgage Company against closing agents, title underwriters, and mortgage brokers. Ameriquest alleged that if it faced liability in a separate borrower action for violating the Truth in Lending Act by failing to provide proper notice of the right to cancel forms, the third-party defendants were responsible due to breaches of contract, negligence in handling disclosures, and principles of equitable indemnity or contribution. The court ruled on a motion to dismiss the second amended third-party complaint, granting it in part and denying it in part. It found that certain contract and negligence claims were adequately pled to proceed but dismissed the equitable claims because federal law under TILA does not recognize a right to contribution or indemnity for such violations.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves plaintiff Amer Kamal, a Jordanian national married to a U.S. citizen, who filed suit under the Mandamus Act and Administrative Procedure Act to compel federal officials including the Attorney General, DHS Secretary, USCIS Director, and FBI Director to complete processing of his adjustment of status application for permanent residency, which had been pending over five years due to an unresolved FBI background check. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, contending that the pace of adjudication was discretionary and unreviewable. The court denied the motion, holding that immigration statutes and regulations create a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications within a reasonable time, that prolonged delays are subject to judicial review, and that the complaint sufficiently alleged facts supporting mandamus or APA relief.

immigrationfederal powerprocedure

In this case, plaintiff William LeDonne alleged that insurance agent William Canady made false promises that AXA Equitable would pay disability benefits if LeDonne could not operate his hardware store, inducing him to buy a policy that AXA later refused to honor when LeDonne filed a claim. Canady moved to dismiss the claims against him for promissory fraud (Count III), negligent misrepresentation (Count IV), and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Count V). The court granted the motion as to Counts III and IV, finding that Illinois law requires a specific scheme or device for promissory fraud claims, which was not alleged, and that the Moorman doctrine barred the negligent misrepresentation claim. The court denied the motion as to Count V, holding that the complaint adequately stated a consumer fraud claim by alleging a pre-purchase misrepresentation rather than a mere breach of contract.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Rafael Gonzales-Gomez's petition for a writ of habeas corpus after immigration authorities ordered his deportation based on an Illinois felony conviction for cocaine possession, which they classified as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court granted the petition, ruling that the state conviction did not qualify as an aggravated felony because the offense would have been punishable only as a misdemeanor under federal law. The court reviewed the issue de novo, as it turned on the interpretation of a federal criminal statute rather than immigration law, and adopted the hypothetical federal felony approach to determine whether a drug offense constitutes a trafficking crime. This approach prioritizes national uniformity in immigration enforcement over state law classifications.

immigrationcriminal law

The case involved a Freedom of Information Act request by Anthony Brown to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for non-public documents related to the re-examination of U.S. Patent No. 6,215,754. The PTO identified responsive records but redacted portions under FOIA Exemption 5, asserting the deliberative process privilege, and the plaintiff sought judicial review after an internal appeal was denied. The court granted the PTO's motion for summary judgment following an in camera review, concluding that the withheld material was both predecisional (predating the re-examination order) and deliberative (reflecting internal policy-making opinions and recommendations).

procedurebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

William Husko sued Geary Electric and Axian Communications in Illinois state court over breach of a sales contract for his business interest, including claims for unpaid bonus, rescission of non-compete clauses, declaratory relief on a credit agreement, and specific performance of a promise to contribute $15,000 annually to Geary's employee pension plan through 2002. The defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction because Count IV involved an ERISA-governed plan and was completely preempted by federal law. Husko moved to remand, arguing no subject matter jurisdiction existed. The court granted remand, holding that the well-pleaded complaint rule barred federal jurisdiction since no federal claim appeared on the face of the complaint, and ERISA complete preemption under §502(a) did not apply to this state-law contract claim for specific performance, as opposed to mere conflict preemption which does not support removal.

procedurelabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved multiple record companies and music publishers seeking a preliminary injunction against Aimster, an internet file-sharing service operated by defendants including John Deep, BuddyUSA, and AbovePeer, alleging contributory and vicarious copyright infringement on a massive scale. The court granted the plaintiffs' joint motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that Aimster's core function was to enable unauthorized transfers of copyrighted music files among users via encrypted instant messaging and peer-to-peer sharing. The reasoning centered on evidence that the vast majority of files shared on the system were infringing plaintiffs' copyrights in sound recordings and musical compositions, that defendants had actual knowledge of the infringement, derived financial benefit from it, and failed to qualify for any DMCA safe harbor protections due to their encryption practices, lack of a designated agent for notices, and inability to control or terminate infringing activity.

business & regulatoryproperty

In this bankruptcy appeal, Doctors Hospital owed the State of Illinois over $500,000 in taxes, penalties, and unemployment contributions, while the State owed the hospital roughly $182,000 in Medicaid reimbursements. Daiwa claimed a perfected security interest in the hospital’s receivables, perfected before the State’s post-assignment taxes accrued. The bankruptcy court held Daiwa’s interest superior and denied setoff. The district court reversed, ruling that the State’s statutory setoff right under the Comptroller Act was an implied contractual term, allowing the State to assert it under UCC § 9-318(1)(a) regardless of Daiwa’s notice of assignment.

business & regulatorytaxeshealthcare

This case concerns a dispute over the ownership of approximately $13.5 million held in a rabbi trust established by Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC) for certain executives. After OMC filed for bankruptcy and converted to Chapter 7, the bankruptcy trustee sought to include the trust assets in the estate for the benefit of general creditors, while Bank of America claimed a perfected security interest in the assets through its lien on OMC's general intangibles under a credit agreement, and the trust beneficiaries asserted their rights. The bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the trustee, and on appeal the district court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the trust agreement expressly provided that the corpus remained subject to the claims of OMC's general creditors and prohibited OMC from granting any security interest in it, preventing the bank's lien from attaching; the subsequent letter of credit did not alter the trust's terms or remove the assets from creditor claims.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Schmitt v. Schmitt, a husband and his affiliated business entities challenged the method of service of process used in an Illinois divorce case, claiming it violated due process and deprived the state trial court of personal jurisdiction over them after state courts rejected those arguments and issued preliminary maintenance and asset orders. The plaintiffs then sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking a declaratory judgment that the state orders were void. The district court granted the wife's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to bar federal review of the state court decisions on jurisdiction and due process, particularly while related state appeals remained pending.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedurefederal power

In this case, petitioner Jorge Acevedo-Carmona, who had pleaded guilty in Illinois state court to delivering between 400 and 900 grams of heroin and received a 20-year sentence, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claiming ineffective assistance of plea counsel. He alleged that counsel gave inaccurate advice on deportation consequences, earned good conduct credit, and the viability of an entrapment defense, and that this led him to accept the plea rather than proceed to trial. After confirming that Acevedo had exhausted his state remedies without procedural default, the court reviewed the claims under the standards of Strickland v. Washington and Hill v. Lockhart. The court concluded that the state courts' rejection of the ineffective-assistance claims was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and therefore denied the petition.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Rafael Mendez, who was convicted in 1989 of murder, attempted robbery, and unlawful use of a firearm by a felon in Illinois state court and sentenced to 50 years in prison. Mendez alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, the state's knowing use of perjured testimony, and discovery violations. The court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as untimely under the one-year statute of limitations imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The conviction became final before the AEDPA's effective date, so the limitations period began running on April 24, 1996, but was tolled during Mendez's state post-conviction proceedings until June 2, 1999; the petition was filed more than four months after the resulting June 2, 2000 deadline. The court declined to apply equitable tolling because Mendez could have discovered the status of his state petition through reasonable diligence without relying on counsel.

criminal lawprocedure