Rodolfo Lozano

This case involved homeowners Brian and Stephanie Royer who filed an insurance claim with USAA Casualty Insurance Company after their home burned down in February 2007; USAA denied the claim on suspected fraud grounds, and the Royers sued for breach of contract and bad-faith handling more than two years later. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment focused on whether the policy's one-year suit limitation period barred the action. The court granted USAA's motion for summary judgment and denied the Royers' partial motion, dismissing the case. It reasoned that the policy's explicit one-year limit from the date of loss was enforceable under Indiana law, the suit was filed outside that period, and a later statute potentially extending such periods could not be applied because it would constitute an impermissible retroactive impairment of the existing contract.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved African-American tenants, including one with a claimed disability, suing the Housing Authority of South Bend, its officials, board members, the local mayor, and the U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. The plaintiffs alleged that their apartment and complex failed habitability standards, that staff retaliated against complaints by inaction and rude treatment, that officials failed to stop bullying by another resident, and that the project reflected intentional racial concentration of non-white residents, all in violation of the Fair Housing Act, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, Civil Rights Act, U.S. Housing Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and related doctrines. Claims against the Housing Authority were dismissed without prejudice, while claims against the board and individual commissioners were dismissed with prejudice; claims against the mayor and HUD Secretary were dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend certain aspects by a set deadline.

civil rightsfederal powerproperty

This case involved a dispute over insurance coverage where Neighborhood Housing Services of America sued Rainbow Community Organization and its employees, including Nicole Turner-Ridley, for damages related to the servicing of mortgage loans. Rainbow and its employees filed a third-party claim seeking a declaration that their insurer, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, had a duty to defend and indemnify them under a directors and officers policy. The court granted Philadelphia's motion for summary judgment and denied Turner-Ridley's cross-motion, finding that the underlying complaint alleged only acts excluded from coverage by the policy's professional services exclusion. The court reasoned that the exclusion did not render the policy illusory because the directors and officers coverage still applied to some reasonably anticipated risks not involving professional services.

business & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Stephen Hoffman sued his former employer, Carefirst of Fort Wayne, Inc. d/b/a Advanced Healthcare, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act as amended in 2008. Hoffman claimed that his renal cell carcinoma, which was in remission, qualified as a disability, that the employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation by allowing him to work from home in Angola rather than commuting daily to Fort Wayne, and that he was terminated because the employer regarded him as disabled. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Hoffman was not disabled under the ADA and that no prima facie case of discrimination existed, and also moved to strike an affidavit and notes submitted by Hoffman. The court denied both motions, finding the evidence admissible and concluding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether Hoffman had a disability, whether he was regarded as disabled, and whether the requested accommodation was reasonable under the circumstances. The court noted that the defendant had not provided sufficient evidence on undue hardship or the specifics of the proposed accommodations to resolve the claims at the summary judgment stage.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a tenant's challenge to her eviction from public housing after a shooting occurred on the property involving her daughter's boyfriend and another visitor, which the housing authority deemed a lease violation. The plaintiff, an African American resident, alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act through segregation, interference with contract under section 1981, due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment via section 1983, and related state law claims including breach of contract and Indiana constitutional violations; she also sought to invalidate Indiana's ejectment statute. The court granted the State of Indiana's and defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding the statutory challenge moot because the plaintiff no longer lived in the housing, dismissing federal claims with prejudice for lack of genuine issues of material fact supporting the allegations, and dismissing state claims without prejudice. The reasoning centered on the lease terms holding tenants responsible for guests' criminal activity threatening safety, the absence of evidence for discriminatory intent or continuing violations, and the plaintiff's voluntary departure after receiving eviction notices.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

The case involved defendant Aaron Robinson, who was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Robinson filed a motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, arguing that the court improperly limited rehabilitation of his expert witness and refused to give his requested theory-of-defense jury instruction on the knowledge element. The court addressed the motion's timeliness in light of a recent amendment to Rule 33 that extended the filing deadline from 7 to 14 days, finding it just and practicable to apply the new deadline and that the government had waived any timeliness objection. On the merits, the court concluded that the existing jury instructions sufficiently covered the defense theory, the evidentiary rulings did not jeopardize the defendant's rights, and therefore the interests of justice did not require a new trial.

criminal lawprocedureguns

The case involved defendant James Patrick, who was indicted on three counts of using a telephone to facilitate drug trafficking felonies, specifically conspiracies to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and marijuana, under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Patrick moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that it failed to sufficiently state the elements of the offenses or inform him of the nature of the charges. The court denied the motion, ruling that the indictment adequately alleged all required elements, including the use of a communication facility to facilitate specific felonies involving particular controlled substances, and provided sufficient notice to satisfy Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections. The court distinguished the indictment from insufficient ones in prior cases like Hinkle and noted that Abuelhawa clarified but did not change the elements needed to prove facilitation of a felony.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Famious Williams, a student teacher at Elmhurst High School, suing school administrators, a supervising teacher, and university officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after his student teaching placement was terminated in the eighth week for failing to meet minimum evaluation scores. Williams alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause based on race discrimination and procedural due process. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding no genuine issues of material fact. It reasoned that Williams presented no evidence of discriminatory animus in the academic evaluations, which were based on university standards, and that any protected interest was afforded sufficient process through comments on evaluations without requiring a formal hearing, as academic decisions receive deference.

civil rightsprocedure

Jennifer Swartz sued her former employer Wabash National Corporation alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act for taking leave related to childbirth, the Equal Pay Act, and Title VII including the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. After Swartz abandoned several claims in response to the motion, the court considered the remaining FMLA and PDA claims on the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and closed the case, finding no genuine issue of material fact that would allow a reasonable jury to rule for Swartz on whether she was meeting legitimate job expectations or on evidence of discrimination. The ruling applied standard summary judgment principles, viewing facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant but requiring specific evidence from the plaintiff on essential elements of her claims.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Johnson-Bey v. Indiana Department of Corrections, prisoners who are members of the Moorish Science Temple of America sued the Indiana Department of Correction and food service staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that their right to practice their religion was violated when pork was served on their Halal diet trays on April 8, 2009. The court denied the request to proceed as a class action and dismissed the complaints sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs' own filings showed the incident resulted from a single negligent mistake by Aramark employees, despite the prison's policy of providing compliant Halal meals, and that negligence does not establish a violation of First Amendment religious rights or Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights under § 1983. The opinion noted that an isolated, unintentional occurrence does not support relief, particularly where no deliberate deviation from the dietary policy occurred.

religious libertycivil rightscriminal law

In this case, state prisoner George Perales sued multiple Elkhart County Jail officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as Indiana statutes, based on events including pat-down searches, grievance handling, and alleged retaliation while he was held at the jail as both a pretrial detainee and convicted inmate. The court conducted a sua sponte review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and applied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard to assess whether the complaint stated plausible claims. It allowed Perales to proceed on his individual-capacity claims for damages against Defendant C. Daniels for alleged excessive force during a pat-search and against Defendant Bowlin for alleged fondling during a pat-down search, but dismissed all other claims and defendants because they lacked sufficient factual allegations to support constitutional violations, did not state cognizable claims under § 1983, or involved no personal involvement or liability for denying grievances. State-law claims were dismissed as not actionable in a § 1983 action, and the court found no basis for First Amendment retaliation claims against the dismissed defendants.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In Lach v. United States, plaintiffs Gregory and Connie Lach brought a quiet title action under 28 U.S.C. § 2409a against the United States, seeking recognition of an easement over National Park Service land (Tract 09-102) to access their residential property from Stagecoach Road. The government moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that the 12-year statute of limitations had run because the NPS acquired the land in 1978 and conducted a boundary survey in 1981. The court denied the motion, holding that when a plaintiff claims a non-possessory easement rather than ownership, the limitations period under § 2409a(g) does not begin upon the government's acquisition or survey of the property but only when the government affirmatively denies or limits the claimed access, which occurred here in 2005.

propertyprocedurefederal power

In United States v. Fabian, the United States sued defendant Rowland Fabian under the Clean Water Act for conducting grading and filling activities on wetlands located on his property in Indiana without a permit. The court denied Fabian's motion for summary judgment and granted the United States' motion in part, finding Fabian liable for violating the Act by discharging fill material into waters of the United States. The wetlands were determined to be adjacent to Burns Ditch, a tributary of navigable waters, qualifying them as protected under the statute following the Supreme Court's decision in Rapanos v. United States. The court based its liability finding on evidence that Fabian's earthmoving activities added pollutants from a point source without authorization, while deferring decisions on injunctive relief and civil penalties.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

In Kitts v. Menards, Inc., a former employee sued his employer under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) for alleged retaliation and termination due to his Naval Reserve obligations. The defendant moved to compel arbitration based on an employment agreement that required binding arbitration for various statutory claims, including those under federal employment laws, and the plaintiff conceded that his claim fell within the agreement's scope. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act creates a strong presumption in favor of enforcing such agreements and that nothing in the text, legislative history, or purposes of USERRA demonstrates Congress's intent to preclude arbitration of these claims in favor of a judicial forum.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved defendant Jimmie L. Collins, who was charged with using the internet to attempt to persuade a minor to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Collins filed motions to suppress evidence seized from his employer's van and a motel room, as well as a motion for return of his laptop computer, all on Fourth Amendment grounds. Following evidentiary hearings, the court denied both motions. The court reasoned that the van search was a valid post-impoundment search supported by probable cause to find items like condoms and an iPod, the motel items were lawfully obtained, and the laptop was voluntarily turned over by Collins' son and girlfriend pursuant to valid consent. Credibility determinations favored the government's account of the events over the defense witnesses.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Thompson, the defendant was indicted on Mann Act charges under 18 U.S.C. § 2422 for allegedly inducing women to travel interstate to engage in prostitution at a massage parlor she operated. She moved to dismiss those counts before trial, arguing that the statute violates due process under Lawrence v. Texas and equal protection by selectively targeting certain businesses. The court denied the motions, holding that Lawrence addressed only private consensual sexual conduct between adults and did not extend to commercial prostitution or create a fundamental right to such activity. It further found no suspect classification or fundamental right implicated, applied rational-basis review, and concluded that the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest in regulating prostitution.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involved a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Virgin Records America, Inc. and other record labels against defendant Heather Johnson for unauthorized downloading of ten specific sound recordings in violation of the Copyright Act. After the defendant failed to appear or respond to the complaint, the clerk entered default, and the plaintiffs moved for default judgment seeking minimum statutory damages, costs, and a permanent injunction. The court granted the motion, awarding $7,500 in statutory damages ($750 per infringement), $335 in costs, post-judgment interest, and a broad injunction prohibiting further infringement of the listed works or any other plaintiffs' recordings via the internet or other means, along with an order to destroy unauthorized copies. The reasoning rested on the defendant's deemed admission of the allegations due to non-response, the straightforward calculation of minimum statutory damages without need for a hearing, and the appropriateness of injunctive relief under 17 U.S.C. § 502 to protect copyrights and serve the public interest.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff suing two defendants for sending a prescreened credit solicitation that allegedly violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to include required consumer disclosures in a clear and conspicuous manner under 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(d). The court granted the defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the FCRA claim. The ruling rested on the plain meaning of the 2003 FACTA amendment adding § 1681m(h)(8), which states that the civil liability provisions in §§ 1681n and 1681o do not apply to any failure to comply with § 1681m and that enforcement is exclusively administrative. The court rejected arguments that the restriction applied only to subsection (h), finding the term "section" unambiguously referred to all of § 1681m.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved whether the value of an IRA rolled over from a lump-sum pension distribution should be excluded from a decedent's gross estate for federal estate tax purposes under transitional rules of tax reform acts. The plaintiff, executrix of the estate, sought a refund of estate taxes paid on the IRA value, arguing it qualified for exclusion due to the decedent's retirement before 1985. The court granted summary judgment to the United States, holding that the IRA proceeds were includable in the gross estate because rollovers into IRAs do not satisfy the requirements for exclusion under section 2039(e) as amended, since IRAs lack the "separation from service" element of qualified employer plans and no irrevocable election was made.

taxes

This case involves a federal capital prosecution of Defendant Corley for his role in a 2002 attempted bank robbery in Indiana that resulted in two murders, along with related firearms and conspiracy charges. The government sought to introduce evidence of an unadjudicated 1998 murder in Atlanta to support the nonstatutory aggravating factor of future dangerousness at the penalty phase. The court conducted a reliability hearing on that evidence, permitted its introduction after finding it sufficiently reliable (including via videoconference testimony from out-of-state witnesses), and required the government to prove the prior conduct beyond a reasonable doubt before the jury could consider it for sentencing. The court unsealed its prior orders detailing these procedures and related jury instructions and verdict forms, while addressing Confrontation Clause concerns under Crawford v. Washington.

criminal lawprocedure