Harry Daniel Leinenweber

Plaintiff Darren Cuff sued Trans States Holdings, Inc., Trans States Airlines, LLC, GoJet Airlines, LLC, and a supervisor, alleging interference and retaliation under the Family Medical Leave Act after his termination. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing primarily that only TSA employed Cuff and that it did not meet the FMLA's 50-employee threshold within 75 miles, while Cuff cross-moved for liability on his interference claim and contended the companies were joint or integrated employers. The court denied the defendants' motion and granted Cuff's, holding that the undisputed facts established the defendants were covered employers under the FMLA, that Cuff was eligible for leave, and that the interference claim succeeded as a matter of law; after-acquired evidence issues were deemed relevant only to damages, not liability.

labor & employment

This case involved a trademark dispute in which plaintiffs claimed that Google's use of the ANDROID mark infringed their registered ANDROID DATA mark. The court had previously granted summary judgment to Google after finding that plaintiffs abandoned their mark. Google then sought attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act as the prevailing party in an exceptional case and sanctions against plaintiffs' attorneys under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for allegedly unreasonable conduct that multiplied the proceedings. The court denied the fees and sanctions motions, as well as plaintiffs' motions to strike, reasoning that the case was not exceptional and that while some attorney conduct was unreasonable, it did not warrant sanctions under the statute.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Ruiz v. Kinsella, homeowners Jose and Sandra Ruiz sued developers, city officials, and the City of Chicago alleging RICO violations, civil rights conspiracies, and due process violations related to structural defects and building code issues in their purchased homes in the Bridgeport Village development, which led to foreclosure on one property. The court granted motions to dismiss, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice and declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. The reasoning was that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead the required elements for RICO, conspiracy, and substantive due process claims, as defendants' actions were tied to legitimate government interests in enforcing building codes and did not shock the conscience.

civil rightspropertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiffs Automotive Finance Corp. and Manheim Automotive Financial Services sought summary judgment to pierce the corporate veil of Joliet Motors, Inc. (JMI) and hold its owner and sole officer Cindy Boliaux personally liable for prior state-court judgments against EMC Automotive and its operator Edward Boliaux. The court granted the motions after finding JMI to be a mere continuation of EMC. The core reasoning was that JMI and Cindy lacked separate personalities due to commingling of funds, including transfers of over $100,000 in cash and nearly $75,000 in checks to Edward without documentation, interest-free loans, and direct payment of Cindy's personal expenses such as mortgage, utilities, and entertainment from corporate accounts. The court further determined that failing to pierce the veil would sanction fraud or injustice because JMI collected EMC's receivables while knowing of the outstanding debts to the plaintiffs.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Specht v. Google Inc., plaintiffs Erich Specht and his companies sued Google for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and related claims under federal and state law, alleging that Google's use of the ANDROID mark for its mobile platform created a likelihood of confusion with their registered ANDROID DATA mark for e-commerce software. The court granted Google's motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims and on two counts of Google's counterclaim. The core reasoning was that plaintiffs abandoned the ANDROID DATA mark by ceasing all commercial use after December 2002—transferring assets to a new entity, canceling services, filing a final tax return, and making statements indicating no ongoing business—while Google began using ANDROID in commerce in 2007; without a valid, enforceable mark, there could be no infringement, and the court ordered cancellation of the federal registration.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned claims by ChampionsWorld, a former sponsor of international soccer exhibitions, against the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) and Major League Soccer (MLS) alleging that USSF lacked authority to regulate professional soccer, used that claimed authority to impose over $3 million in fees, and engaged in an anticompetitive scheme favoring MLS. The court addressed motions for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), granting them in part and denying them in part. It held that the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act does not authorize USSF to govern professional soccer except as needed for Olympic, Paralympic, and Pan-American Games participation, and therefore USSF receives no broad antitrust exemption in the professional sphere. The court dismissed the economic duress count but allowed the antitrust, RICO, and remaining contract counts to proceed, finding the allegations sufficient under the applicable pleading standards.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In Shirley v. JED Capital, LLC, plaintiff Christopher Shirley, a member of the investment company JED, sued the company and its manager John Harada over alleged misrepresentations and mismanagement related to his investments and compensation in the firm, bringing claims under both state and federal law including breach of contract, fraud, fiduciary duty, securities violations, and RICO. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding federal question jurisdiction existed, and ruled on the sufficiency of the pleadings under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b). It granted the motion as to counts 1 and 7, dismissing them without prejudice for failure to state a claim, but denied dismissal for counts 2, 3, 4, and 6, finding the allegations sufficient, including that demand on the manager would be futile for the derivative claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Walter Kidde Portable Equipment, Inc. (a UTC subsidiary) against competitor Universal Security Instruments, Inc. (USI) over a now-expired smoke alarm patent with a hush feature. USI filed counterclaims alleging that UTC violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act through sham litigation and attempts to monopolize the interconnected smoke alarm market, along with an Illinois unfair competition claim based on alleged coercion of a supplier. The court granted USI leave to amend its pleadings and denied UTC's motion to dismiss, holding that USI's allegations of a 65% market share, declining competitors, high regulatory barriers to entry, and possible timely accrual of the unfair competition claim were sufficient to state plausible claims under the Twombly/Iqbal standard.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved insurance companies seeking a declaratory judgment that they had no duty to defend or indemnify Avent America, a manufacturer of baby bottles and accessories, against multiple class action lawsuits. The underlying suits alleged that consumers suffered economic losses from Avent's undisclosed use of the chemical BPA in its products and sought remedies such as disgorgement and restitution, but contained no claims of actual bodily injury. Avent counterclaimed and brought third-party actions against additional insurers for breach of contract and declarations of coverage obligations. The court granted judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment for the insurers, declaring no duty to defend or indemnify under the policies. It reasoned that under Illinois law the policies covered only sums owed because of bodily injury or property damage, and the complaints alleged purely economic harm outside that scope.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves plaintiffs Erich Specht, Android Data Corporation, and The Android’s Dungeon Inc. alleging that Google, its subsidiary Android Inc., individual employees, the Open Handset Alliance, and other corporate defendants infringed their registered "ANDROID DATA" trademark by using the "ANDROID" mark for mobile software and related products, in violation of the Lanham Act and Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Google defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds including failure to state a claim, lack of personal jurisdiction and venue, and standing. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing all claims against defendants other than Google without prejudice, dismissing the trademark infringement claim by Specht and ADC with prejudice for lack of standing because only the current mark owner has standing under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, and allowing the unfair competition and state law claims to proceed for all plaintiffs. The court denied the request for a more definite statement as to Google, finding the complaint sufficiently alleged facts against it while granting leave to amend regarding the other defendants.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a lawsuit filed by plaintiff George R. Irvine, III against 233 Skydeck, LLC, operator of the Skydeck tourist attraction, alleging a willful violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by printing the expiration date of his credit card on a computer-generated receipt; the plaintiff sought statutory damages on behalf of a putative class without claiming actual harm. Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), challenging FACTA's constitutionality on due process grounds (vagueness of the $100-$1,000 statutory damages range and impermissible double punishment via punitive damages) and equal protection grounds (exemption for handwritten or imprinted receipts). The court denied the motion, finding that statutory damages ranges like FACTA's are routinely upheld and not vague in the commercial context, that the damages provisions did not amount to double punishment, and that the exemption for non-electronic receipts was rationally related to preventing identity theft by balancing enforcement challenges and potential harms.

business & regulatoryprocedurecivil rights

This case involves consolidated racial harassment lawsuits filed by individual plaintiffs and the EEOC on behalf of Hispanic employees against Ceisel Masonry, alleging derogatory comments and racist graffiti at job sites. The court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment: the defendant sought to limit the EEOC's claims for monetary damages for certain class members, and the plaintiff sought to bar the defendant's affirmative defense under Burlington Industries v. Ellerth. The court denied both motions, finding that disputed facts regarding the harassment and the employer's liability precluded summary judgment for the defendant, and that partial summary judgment was not appropriate for the Ellerth defense because it requires an individualized assessment of the employer's response to the specific facts of harassment rather than generalized judgments.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this case, former and current temporary employees of Kelly Services sued the company under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act, alleging they were denied earned vacation and holiday pay upon leaving employment and did not receive required wage notices listing client details and hours worked. The plaintiffs sought damages, penalties, and other relief on behalf of a proposed class. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the company's policies conditioning benefits on remaining employed at year-end or during specific periods did not comply with the requirement to pay all earned compensation upon termination. It further concluded that the IDTLSA notice provisions applied and that the statutory penalties were neither unconstitutionally vague nor disproportionate.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involves former employees of International Merchant Services, Inc. suing the company and its owner for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, alleging unpaid overtime due to an artificial 44-hour cap and misclassification as exempt, withheld wages including a final paycheck, and retaliation for complaints about these practices, with defendants counterclaiming for repayment of overpaid wages. The court partially granted and denied both parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment. It ruled for plaintiffs on their overtime claims during exempt classification periods, one plaintiff's final paycheck, dismissal of the counterclaim, and joint liability, while granting defendants judgment on certain retaliation claims tied to specific comments or actions and one constructive discharge claim. The core reasoning relied on undisputed facts about employment periods and classifications, evidence of pay policies and agreements, the timing and nature of alleged adverse actions relative to complaints, and the elements required under direct and indirect methods for proving retaliation.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involves Electroplated Metal Solutions, Inc. suing multiple carriers and riggers, including American Services, Inc., under the Carmack Amendment and common law for damage to industrial machinery shipped from California to Illinois. American moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), citing a forum selection clause in its work order requiring suits in California. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff lacked reasonable notice of the clause on the back of the work order and had not agreed to it, so it was unenforceable. The court also held that venue was proper in Illinois and that transfer to California would merely shift inconvenience between the parties without serving the interests of justice.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute between ChampionsWorld, a defunct promoter of international men's soccer matches, and the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) along with Major League Soccer (MLS), concerning USSF's imposition of sanctioning fees under match agreements from 2001 to 2005 and related claims of RICO violations, Sherman Act antitrust issues, and state law breaches. ChampionsWorld alleged that USSF falsely claimed exclusive regulatory authority and threatened sanctions via FIFA to extract fees, while favoring MLS. The court granted the defendants' motions to stay the litigation under the Federal Arbitration Act, finding the claims subject to arbitration. The core reasoning was that ChampionsWorld's CEO had agreed to FIFA's Match Agent Regulations, including their dispute resolution provisions requiring submission to the FIFA Players' Status Committee, which constituted a valid arbitration agreement enforceable under the FAA; the forum selection clauses in the match agreements did not override this, and the entire action was stayed pending arbitration.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case was a qui tam action brought by relator Cleveland Tyson under the federal False Claims Act and the Illinois Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act against Amerigroup Illinois, Inc. and its parent, alleging that the defendants fraudulently induced Medicaid HMO contracts with the Illinois Department of Public Aid by falsely promising not to discriminate in enrollment based on health needs, and then submitted false enrollment forms seeking inflated capitation payments while actually avoiding high-risk enrollees such as pregnant women. After a jury trial, the jury found for the plaintiffs on both fraudulent inducement and false claims theories, awarding $48 million in damages and determining there were 18,130 false claims. The court denied the defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law, new trial, and remittitur, holding that sufficient evidence supported the verdict and that the resulting civil penalties were not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment, as each penalty was tied directly to a false claim submitted. The court partially granted the plaintiffs' motion to impose maximum penalties consistent with the jury's findings.

criminal lawhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a patent infringement dispute where JVI, Inc. alleged that Universal Holdings and Ratee LLC infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,185,897, which covers an improved flange connector design for precast concrete structures to prevent cracking from welding and better handle shear forces. The court conducted a Markman claim construction to interpret disputed terms in Claims 1 and 6 of the patent. The court adopted JVI's proposed constructions for the terms regarding the angles of the faceplate returns and the positioning of the embedded legs, reasoning that the claim language and specification support a functional interpretation rather than limiting the angles strictly to the preferred embodiment described. The constructions allow for flexibility in design as long as the connectors can flex under forces and expand without distress to the concrete.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs sued an auto dealership under the federal Truth in Lending Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, alleging they were overcharged on a vehicle purchase by double-counting the outstanding balance on their trade-in. The defendant moved to dismiss or compel arbitration under an agreement signed at the time of sale. The court denied the motion, holding the arbitration agreement unenforceable for lack of consideration. It reasoned that the agreement's broad exceptions exempted nearly all claims the dealership could bring, creating no mutual obligation to arbitrate and rendering the promise illusory under Illinois contract law. The court treated the agreement as a standalone contract separate from the purchase documents.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute between font owners Agfa Monotype Corporation and International Typeface Corp. and Adobe Systems, Inc. over whether features in Adobe Acrobat 5.0, such as the FreeText and Forms tools, violated Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by allowing users to embed and edit TrueType fonts whose embedding bits restricted use to print and preview only. The plaintiffs alleged that these features circumvented technological protections on their approximately 3,300 copyrighted fonts. The court granted summary judgment to Adobe, holding that the embedding bits did not qualify as an effective technological measure under the DMCA because the fonts were neither encrypted nor otherwise protected from access, and that Acrobat 5.0 was not primarily designed or marketed for circumvention but had other significant commercial purposes.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure