Little Lady Foods sued its insurer Houston Casualty Company seeking declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and bad faith claims after the insurer denied coverage under a Malicious Product Tampering/Accidental Product Contamination policy for costs incurred when the company held and tested burrito products that tested positive for bacteria in the listeria genus but negative for the specific strain listeria monocytogenes. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on stipulated facts showing that Little Lady's HACCP plan and USDA regulations required the hold and testing after detecting listeria genus bacteria, but no LM was found, no illness occurred, and the USDA ultimately released the product. The court denied Little Lady's motion and granted the insurer's motion on all counts, holding that the policy's definition of accidental product contamination required that consumption of the product may likely result in physical injury or illness, which was not satisfied here because LM was absent. The court reasoned that the policy covers remediation of actual contamination risks meeting that definition, not the costs of preventive testing or regulatory compliance when no such risk materializes.
The case arose after Canopy Financial's Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee sued American Express to recover payments allegedly resulting from fraud by the company's officers, asserting claims for fraudulent transfers under the Bankruptcy Code and Illinois law plus unjust enrichment. American Express moved to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court, arguing that Stern v. Marshall stripped that court of constitutional authority to decide the claims. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that Stern did not remove the bankruptcy court's power to hear the claims and submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, since the claims remained at least related to the bankruptcy case even if they could no longer be treated as core proceedings.
Stacey Fletcher sued OneWest Bank, the servicer of her mortgage, alleging that the bank mishandled her application for a loan modification under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). She claimed breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act based on representations about qualifying for modification and the bank's handling of her trial period payments and documentation. OneWest moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) or failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing only the consumer fraud claim insofar as it challenged the bank's servicing practices and procedures but allowing the contract, estoppel, and remaining fraud claims to proceed on the grounds that the trial period plan was an enforceable agreement and that certain statements could support liability.
In this case, Markel American Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment regarding coverage under a maritime insurance policy issued to defendant Ryan Dolan, while Dolan asserted counterclaims including breach of contract and a claim under Illinois statute 215 ILCS 5/155 alleging vexatious and unreasonable denial of his claim. The court first addressed and resolved a jurisdictional issue under admiralty law, declining to impose sanctions on Dolan for an initially withdrawn motion. It then denied Markel's motion to dismiss the Section 155 counterclaim, finding that Dolan's allegations of fact misrepresentation, inadequate investigation, and reliance on speculation were sufficient to state a claim beyond a mere coverage dispute. However, the court granted Markel's motion to stay the Section 155 counterclaims pending resolution of the coverage issues, reasoning that this would streamline litigation, reduce burdens, and avoid prejudice given the closed discovery period.
The case involved a multiemployer pension fund and its trustee suing Waste Management of Michigan under ERISA to enforce contribution obligations under a 2005 collective bargaining agreement with a Teamsters local union, a Participation Agreement, and related trust documents. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on liability, finding that Waste Management remained bound to make pension contributions through at least January 31, 2009, because the 2005 CBA's evergreen clause required 60 days' notice to terminate and did not permit earlier unilateral opt-out, while the Participation Agreement barred any unapproved modifications that reduced contribution duties. The court rejected the company's argument that a subsequent 2008 agreement eliminated its obligations, as that agreement had not been properly submitted to the fund as required. The court accepted the parties' stipulated damages amount of $30,447 in unpaid contributions plus interest and liquidated damages, entering judgment for the plaintiffs.
Lydia Magallanes sued her former employer Illinois Bell Telephone Company under Title VII, the ADEA, the ADA, and Illinois state law, claiming national origin discrimination and retaliation for a failure to promote her to Marketing Support Specialist, as well as discipline and termination based on national origin, age, disability, and retaliation for a prior discrimination charge and a workers' compensation claim. The court denied summary judgment on the national origin discrimination claim and the failure-to-promote portion of the Title VII retaliation claim, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the promotion denial was based on her test performance or on discriminatory or retaliatory motives. The court granted summary judgment on the discipline and termination claims under Title VII and on the ADEA, ADA, and state retaliatory discharge claims, reasoning that Magallanes presented insufficient evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory causation and that the employer followed its attendance policies.