William J. Hibbler

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.

business & regulatory

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryproperty

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Nalco sued Environmental Management, Inc. (EMI) in Illinois state court for breach of contract and negligence, claiming EMI failed to timely remove a chemical from a customer's property in Mississippi, leading to a spill after improper storage. EMI removed the case to federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on diversity grounds and later brought third-party claims against subcontractors Clean Harbors Environmental Services and United States Environmental Services. EMI, along with the third-party defendants, moved to transfer venue to the Southern District of Mississippi under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court granted the transfer, finding that the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of justice favored Mississippi because the underlying events, evidence, and most witnesses were located there, while rejecting arguments that third-party defendants lacked standing or that EMI had waived its right to seek transfer.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liabilityenvironment

The case involved two investment committees, acting as fiduciaries for BP pension plans, suing Northern Trust entities for ERISA violations related to a securities lending program that incurred losses when collateral pools collapsed during a market crisis. Northern Trust filed a counterclaim seeking contribution and indemnification, alleging the committees breached their own fiduciary duties by failing to obtain or act on information about the program. The court granted the committees' motion to dismiss the counterclaim, reasoning that ERISA Section 405(d) limits co-fiduciary liability when investment managers are appointed, that no implied right to contribution or indemnification applied here under precedents like Free v. Briody, and that a counterclaim was not the proper procedural vehicle to shift liability even if such remedies were available.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involves claims by several female elementary students and their parents against a music teacher, Robert Sperlik, the South Berwyn School District, and various school officials. Sperlik had sexually abused multiple students over years, and the plaintiffs alleged that school officials ignored or downplayed reports of the abuse, allowing it to continue, in violation of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title IX, along with state law claims. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court addressed the claims against individual defendants separately and denied summary judgment for defendant Grindle on claims related to several plaintiffs, finding evidence that officials had received detailed complaints but failed to adequately investigate or respond. The court reasoned that the officials' actions, including minimizing the reports to parents and not imposing meaningful discipline, raised triable issues regarding deliberate indifference or failure to protect.

civil rightscriminal law

The case involves Brothers Food & Liquor, Inc., a Chicago store authorized to accept federal food stamp benefits via EBT cards, which was permanently disqualified by the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service after the agency identified patterns of rapid, high-dollar EBT transactions suggestive of trafficking. The store appealed internally without success and then sought judicial review in federal court, arguing both that it had not committed violations and that the permanent disqualification was arbitrary and capricious. On the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court denied the motion as to whether violations occurred, finding that factual disputes remained about the store's operations and transaction patterns. However, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the penalty issue, holding that the agency's discretionary decision to impose permanent disqualification rather than a lesser sanction was not arbitrary or capricious because the store had failed to provide substantial evidence of an effective anti-trafficking policy when given the opportunity. The court noted that if the store ultimately fails to prove it is innocent of violations, the disqualification will stand.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved Del Monte Fresh Produce suing its former sales manager Kim Kinnavy for allegedly breaching confidentiality and non-compete agreements by emailing company files to herself and a third party before resigning to join competitor Chiquita Brands International, along with claims that Chiquita committed business torts such as tortious interference. Kinnavy and Chiquita moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted Chiquita's motion in full and Kinnavy's motion in part, dismissing the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim because Del Monte failed to show any qualifying damage or loss from Kinnavy's access to the files, while allowing certain state-law contract claims to proceed after analyzing the agreements under Illinois and Florida law and finding genuine issues of material fact on enforceability and breach. The decision rested on the absence of evidence meeting the statutory definitions of damage or loss under the CFAA and the application of summary judgment standards requiring no genuine disputes of material fact.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

Donna Howard, a corrections officer in the Cook County Sheriff's Department, sued the Sheriff and three supervisors alleging sexual harassment by two of them and retaliation after she complained about their conduct. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the supervisors' comments and advances were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment under Title VII. The court further found that the claimed retaliatory acts, such as isolated comments and ignored suggestions, amounted only to petty slights rather than materially adverse actions that would dissuade a reasonable employee from complaining. The opinion also resolved a procedural dispute over requests to admit by deeming the defendants' responses timely or allowing withdrawal, but did not rely on admissions in reaching the merits.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case centers on the Central States Pension Fund suing Gopher News Company to recover over $275,000 in alleged unpaid pension contributions, claiming the company violated an adverse selection rule by using modified job classifications in its collective bargaining agreements with Local 638 to shift new drivers into a non-participating warehouse unit while preserving benefits for existing drivers. Gopher News sought to implead the union for indemnification, four employees moved to intervene with claims against the fund, union, and company, and the company moved to amend its answer and counterclaim to allege conspiracy and related claims regarding misleading conduct around the agreements and audit. The court examined the standards for impleader under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14, ERISA Section 515's limits on defenses in contribution actions, and the viability of proposed counterclaims including fraud, unjust enrichment, restitution, and declaratory judgment. It granted the motion to amend in part, allowing incorporation of certain allegations but rejecting a standalone conspiracy count as duplicative of the fraud claim, and rejected the plan's arguments against unjust enrichment and restitution as lacking support.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Dr. Philip Bodenstab, an anesthesiologist at Cook County Hospital, was suspended and ultimately terminated after a friend reported to police and the FBI that he had made statements suggesting he might harm coworkers if diagnosed with cancer. Bodenstab sued the hospital and related defendants, asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act for alleged discrimination based on a perceived disability, along with associated due process claims concerning his suspension, required psychiatric evaluation, and discharge. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ADA and due process claims, reasoning that the hospital's actions were based on credible reports of threats, the results of a psychiatric evaluation finding Bodenstab impaired in his ability to practice medicine safely, and legitimate non-discriminatory grounds rather than unlawful bias.

civil rightslabor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved a dispute between Allstate Insurance and its reinsurer Employers Reinsurance Corp. (ERC) over coverage for 88 long-unreported Personal Injury Protection claims under a 1972-1978 reinsurance treaty. Allstate discovered and submitted the claims in 1999 after an internal review, but ERC denied them for failure to provide prompt notice as required by Article XII of the treaty. The court granted ERC summary judgment on eight claims where Allstate's payments had already exceeded the retention amount before notice was given, finding the notice untimely under the treaty's terms, while granting Allstate summary judgment on the remaining claims and dismissing three as moot. The reasoning focused on the treaty language granting Allstate discretion to determine when a claim might affect ERC, the lack of any prior course of dealing that would support estoppel, and the undisputed facts showing Allstate was unaware of the claims rather than intentionally delaying notice.

business & regulatory

The case involved a group of churches (C.L.U.B. and others) challenging Chicago's zoning ordinance, which permits churches as of right in all residential districts but requires special-use permits for churches in business and certain commercial districts, while prohibiting them in manufacturing districts; plaintiffs argued this treatment violated the First Amendment and, under Count XIV, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The City moved for summary judgment on the claims, including the RLUIPA count, while plaintiffs cross-moved. The court granted the City's motions for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs' motion, holding that the zoning rules were neutral, generally applicable, and rationally related to legitimate land-use interests, with churches receiving favorable treatment in residential zones and recent amendments aligning similar non-religious uses with the same permit requirements. The court further found no substantial burden on religious exercise under RLUIPA and rejected claims of unequal treatment or free-speech violations.

religious libertycivil rights

Omar Zamora filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1994 Illinois conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, after his direct appeal and post-conviction petition were denied by state courts. The petition raised claims including ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, denial of an interpreter during jury selection, due process violations from lack of an evidentiary hearing and extension of time, and denial of a fair and impartial jury. The district court granted the state's motion to dismiss, finding that some claims were non-cognizable on federal habeas review and that the remaining claims were procedurally defaulted because they were not properly presented to the state courts on direct or post-conviction appeal. The court held that the state appellate court's waiver rulings rested on independent and adequate state procedural grounds, and Zamora failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice to overcome the defaults.

criminal lawprocedure