Blanche M. Manning

The case concerns a proposed class action by plaintiff Natalie Van Straaten against Shell Oil entities alleging that Shell violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by printing more than the last five digits of card numbers on electronically generated receipts for its proprietary credit and debit cards at gas stations. The court denied Shell's motion for summary judgment after examining the statute's truncation requirements, the distinction between magnetic-stripe PAN data and embossed card numbers, and Shell's unique numbering system. Core reasoning focused on whether Shell's practice of masking non-terminal digits complied with FACTA's plain language and whether factual disputes precluded judgment. The court also granted Shell's request to certify the denial order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), finding the statutory interpretation issue controlling and contestable.

business & regulatory

This case arose from a licensing dispute between Zimmer, Inc. and orthopedic surgeon Dr. W. Norman Scott over royalty payments for artificial knee devices, which led to arbitration proceedings. After Zimmer withdrew its defenses on the eve of a hearing and agreed to pay royalties, the arbitration panel awarded Dr. Scott approximately $350,000 in attorneys' fees, finding bad faith conduct and relying on its inherent authority under the Federal Arbitration Act and the parties' broad arbitration clauses that permitted 'any relief' the panel deemed proper. Zimmer moved to vacate the award in state court (later removed on diversity grounds), arguing that the panel exceeded its powers because neither Illinois nor Indiana law allowed fee awards absent contractual or statutory authorization. The court granted Dr. Scott's motion to confirm the award and denied Zimmer's motion to vacate, holding that the expansive language in the agreements authorized the relief and that judicial review was limited to whether the arbitrators interpreted the contract rather than the correctness of their decision.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves Harold McCadd and his 91-year-old mother suing Chicago police officers and the city after two 2009 searches of their home—one allegedly based on disputed consent and the other on a warrant obtained from a John Doe informant—along with Harold's arrest on drug charges that were later dropped for lack of evidence. The plaintiffs alleged constitutional violations including unreasonable searches and false arrest, plus malicious prosecution. The court granted summary judgment only on the strip search claim but denied it on the remaining claims. The core reasoning was that disputed facts about probable cause, consent, and the officers' actions prevented summary judgment, and qualified immunity could not be resolved in defendants' favor at this stage.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved disputes arising from the conversion of Sportsman’s Park into the Chicago Motor Speedway, where National Jockey Club and Ganassi Group formed an LLC, financed construction via loans and contributions, and executed a lease with Chip Ganassi’s personal guaranty limited to $10.5 million. A jury awarded damages to NJC on its breach of contract claim against Ganassi based on the guaranty and to Ganassi Group on its counterclaim for breach of the operating agreement. The court denied NJC’s and Ganassi’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or new trials, as well as Ganassi’s equitable claims for rescission or set-off. It reasoned that the evidence supported the jury verdicts, that Ganassi Group maintained a separate legal existence from Ganassi despite his payments, and that no grounds existed for equitable relief after considering the parties’ contracts and conduct.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Photographer Wayne Cable sued Agence France Presse (AFP) alleging that AFP copied his photographs of a Chicago property (including views of President Obama's home), displayed and distributed them online without permission, removed his copyright notices and credits, and purported to license them to others. Cable asserted nine counts including violations of the DMCA (removal of copyright management information), the Lanham Act, Illinois consumer fraud statutes, unfair competition, and copyright infringement. AFP moved to dismiss the first five counts under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing among other things that the removed information did not qualify as copyright management information under the DMCA and that Dastar barred the Lanham Act claim. The court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that Cable's allegations were sufficient to state claims, and later denied AFP's motion to reconsider the Lanham Act ruling because it would require resolving factual questions beyond the pleadings.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs suing Google over its AdSense for Domains program, alleging that Google knowingly profited from advertising on domain names confusingly similar to the plaintiffs' trademarks by generating sponsored links and search results on undeveloped sites registered by third parties. After dismissing some claims and denying class certification, the court addressed Google's motion for partial summary judgment on the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act count. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether Google qualified as a licensee or registrant of the disputed domains under its agreements with parking companies and partners, which would trigger liability under the statute.

business & regulatory

The case involved plaintiffs John W. von Holdt, Jr., Janice Anderson, and Plas-Tool Company suing defendants A-1 Tool Corporation and others for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,512,493 on molded buckets and lids, a claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and various state law claims including trade secret violations and tortious interference. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the patent infringement claim, finding that the plaintiffs had not provided the required statutory notice under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) through either marking of products or actual notice, and on the CFAA claim due to insufficient evidence of damage or loss meeting the statutory thresholds. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice, while also dismissing related counterclaims without prejudice.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

Mercatus Group LLC sued Lake Forest Hospital alleging that the hospital conspired to monopolize the diagnostic medical imaging market in Eastern Lake County by opposing Mercatus's plans to open a physician center in Lake Bluff, Illinois, including through statements and influence at local zoning hearings before the Village Board. The district court granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment on Mercatus's federal antitrust claims. The core reasoning was that the hospital's conduct consisted of protected expressions of opinion and misleading statements that did not cause antitrust injury, as the Village Board ultimately denied approval, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved three U.S.-based employees of TECRO, an entity established under the Taiwan Relations Act to handle relations with Taiwan, who sued for age discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA along with related state-law claims. TECRO moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to foreign sovereign immunity. The court denied the motion in part and granted it in part, allowing most of the federal discrimination and retaliation claims to proceed while dismissing certain state-law counts. Its reasoning centered on the commercial nature of TECRO's local employment practices, which fell within the FSIA's commercial-activity exception and were not immune sovereign acts.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involves plaintiffs Byron Christmas and Tiffany Banks suing the City of Chicago and police officers for alleged civil rights violations, including illegal searches, false arrests, and leaving their newborn child unattended during an arrest, along with related state law claims. The court addressed numerous pretrial motions in limine to exclude or limit evidence and witnesses. It granted motions to bar evidence on topics like a miscarriage, tattoos, unpaid business taxes, and other children due to lack of relevance or failure to show obligation under tax law, while denying or partially denying others concerning untimely witness disclosures, expert testimony, and lay opinions on damages based on Federal Rules of Evidence 608(b), 701, and Civil Procedure Rule 37(c) regarding substantial justification and harmlessness. The rulings emphasized that evidence must be probative and disclosures timely, with arguments raised only in replies being forfeited.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved claims by investors Carl Greer and Thomas Floyd against Advanced Equities, Inc. and its officers for allegedly inducing investments in Pixelon, Inc. through fraudulent misrepresentations about the company's technology and management under federal securities laws and state claims. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the federal claims under Sections 12(a)(2) and 10(b) because the Second Amended Complaint failed to plead fraud with sufficient particularity as required by Rule 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. It also dismissed the state law claims after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them following the dismissal of the federal claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Kelly Bires, a professional racecar driver, who sued WalTom, LLC and TD Racing Development, LLC seeking a declaratory judgment that a contract between the parties is null and void. The defendants moved for summary judgment on seven of the eight counts in the First Amended Complaint, while Bires moved for judgment on the pleadings on four counts. The court granted both motions in part and denied them in part. In its reasoning, the court examined issues including contract formation, the existence and terms of any oral or written agreements regarding racing services and compensation, provisions on termination and royalties, and claims of duress or lack of consideration, while deeming certain facts admitted based on the parties' responses to statements of fact.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement dispute where plaintiffs John W. Von Holdt and others alleged that defendants A-1 Tool Corporation and others infringed U.S. Patent No. 4,512,493 for a molded bucket and lid with high stack strength. The court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation on claim construction following a Markman hearing. The defendants objected to the construction of terms including "molded bucket," "side-by-side," "a relatively large radius," "in alignment," and "generally V-shaped ribs." The court overruled the objections, adopting the magistrate's constructions based on the patent specification, prosecution history, and relevant Federal Circuit precedents.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs who purchased a defective 2006 motorhome and sued the manufacturer, parts suppliers, and dealer for breach of written and implied warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act as well as a state claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, alleging that numerous defects substantially impaired the vehicle's value and use. Defendants moved to dismiss certain federal claims, arguing lack of privity, failure to plead unconscionability of warranty limitations, insufficient offers to repair, and that certain promises did not qualify as warranties. The court denied the motions, holding that factual questions existed regarding an agency relationship between the manufacturer and dealer that could establish privity, that the complaint adequately alleged unconscionability, and that the offers and promises raised issues not suitable for dismissal at the pleading stage.

business & regulatory

This case concerns sanctions against attorney William Nissen, lead counsel for defendant Lake Shore Asset Management Ltd. in a CFTC enforcement action involving statutory restraining orders, asset freezes, and discovery compliance following a Seventh Circuit appeal. The court evaluated whether Nissen should be sanctioned under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2), 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and inherent powers for conduct including filing motions that ignored prior rulings, failing to acknowledge discovery obligations, and otherwise multiplying proceedings. Applying standards of objectively unreasonable or bad faith conduct that obstructs the orderly administration of justice, the court reviewed specific post-appeal filings, emergency motions, and interactions with opposing counsel showing a pattern of disregarding court orders. The court concluded that sanctions were warranted because the attorney's actions crossed from zealous advocacy into obstructionism.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves a class action lawsuit by Vulcan Golf, LLC and other plaintiffs against Google Inc. and several domain registration and parking companies, alleging that the defendants registered and used domain names confusingly similar to the plaintiffs' trademarks to generate advertising revenue through Google's ad system, often via typosquatting and monetization of parked domains. The complaint asserted fourteen counts, including RICO violations under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d), cybersquatting, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, dilution, state consumer fraud claims, and various common law claims like unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy. On motions to dismiss, the court granted the consolidated motion to dismiss the RICO counts as well as the unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy counts, while granting in part and denying in part the individual defendants' motions to dismiss other counts, primarily due to pleading deficiencies under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 9(b), and 12(b)(6), lack of particularity in alleging fraud, and failure to state certain claims. The court accepted the complaint's factual allegations as true for purposes of the motions but found insufficient support for the dismissed claims, while allowing certain federal trademark and related claims to proceed. Supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims was retained because federal claims persisted.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Mercatus Group, LLC suing Lake Forest Hospital, the Village of Lake Bluff, and village trustees, alleging that the hospital sought to monopolize the diagnostic medical imaging market by interfering with Mercatus's plans to build a competing physician center in Lake Bluff. Mercatus claimed the defendants manipulated zoning processes, including requiring an unnecessary special use permit despite the land's existing L-2 zoning, misrepresented facts, and intimidated physicians to block the project, leading to nine counts under federal antitrust laws, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 constitutional claims, state law, and tortious interference. The court granted the Village Defendants' motion to dismiss in full and granted LFH's motion to dismiss in part while denying it in part. The core reasoning centered on doctrines like state action immunity protecting the village's actions, lack of viable antitrust conspiracy or due process violations based on the alleged facts and public records of prior permits, and failure to state claims under the applicable legal standards for a 12(b)(6) motion.

business & regulatoryhealthcarecivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by the Illinois Restaurant Association and a Chicago restaurant to a city ordinance banning the sale of foie gras at food establishments, on the grounds that it exceeded Chicago's home rule authority under the Illinois Constitution and violated the dormant Commerce Clause. The court granted the city's motion to dismiss, holding that the ordinance was constitutional under both state and federal law. It reasoned that Chicago, as a home rule unit, could enact the measure to address the ethical treatment of animals used in food production, that the ban applied evenhandedly to in-state and out-of-state products without facial discrimination, and that any resulting burdens on commerce did not trigger invalidation under the Pike balancing test or the Foreign Commerce Clause.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved plaintiff Timothy Finwall, who was arrested and detained for over 48 hours on attempted abduction charges based on reports from two mothers and their daughters about strangers approaching neighborhood children; after acquittal, he sued the City of Chicago, two detectives, and one mother under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, unlawful detention, conspiracy, and due process violations, plus state claims for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied Finwall's motion entirely, granted summary judgment to defendants on the false arrest claims (Counts I and III) and the IIED claim against the City (Count IX) while denying it on the unlawful detention claims (Counts II and IV), the conspiracy claim (Count V), and indemnification (Count X), and dismissed other claims as time-barred or moot. The core reasoning centered on the Fourth Amendment governing post-arrest detention, application of the two-year Illinois statute of limitations for § 1983 claims, the Townes doctrine barring respondeat superior liability when underlying claims against individuals are time-barred, and the absence of arguments on certain counts.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

Black & Decker sued Bosch alleging that its Power Box jobsite radios infringed certain patents, including previously asserted ones and a new patent. In an earlier related case, a jury found willful infringement on the prior patents, but the court had excluded the New Power Box model from that trial. Bosch moved for judgment on the pleadings in the current suit, arguing that res judicata barred claims on the previously asserted patents. The court granted the motion, finding that a final judgment on the merits existed between the same parties on the same causes of action and that Black & Decker could have raised the New Power Box claims in the prior litigation through timely discovery requests but failed to do so.

procedurebusiness & regulatory