Joe Billy McDade

This case concerns disputes among the owners and officers of Access2Go, Inc., a telecommunications company, regarding the monitoring of plaintiff Shefts' electronic communications through company computers, email systems, and Blackberries after concerns arose about potential workplace misconduct. The court considered plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on claims against defendants Petrakis and Huffman, along with related motions to strike certain allegations, emails, and privileged communications from the pleadings. The court denied summary judgment, concluding there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the monitoring complied with the employee manual's authorization requirements and whether plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy. It granted motions to strike new arguments and immaterial or privileged paragraphs from the complaint but denied a request to stay proceedings.

procedurelabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned Hartford Casualty Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment in its action seeking a declaratory judgment on whether a professional liability policy covered malpractice claims against a law firm and its attorneys. The policy specified a retroactive date of December 21, 2006, but the underlying claims involved alleged errors predating that point, and the insured parties asserted that an agent had misrepresented the scope of coverage. The court granted the motion, holding that no genuine issue of material fact existed because the policy language plainly limited coverage to acts after the retroactive date and any misunderstanding about its legal effect was a mistake of law that did not support reformation of the contract.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves plaintiff David L. Scott appealing the Social Security Administration's denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), based on physical and mental impairments that he claimed prevented substantial gainful activity. The court applied the five-step sequential evaluation process to assess disability, reviewing whether the ALJ's findings on the severity of impairments, residual functional capacity, ability to perform past work, and other available jobs were supported by substantial evidence. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's motion for summary affirmance, concluding that the ALJ properly weighed medical evidence, considered the listings for mental impairments, and made credibility determinations that had support in the record without being patently wrong. The review was limited to checking for substantial evidence rather than reweighing facts or substituting judgment for that of the ALJ.

healthcareprocedure

The case concerned Eddie Hardwick's claims against Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 965 after the closure of Sunbelt's Decatur, Illinois facility, where Hardwick had worked as shop foreman. Hardwick alleged that Sunbelt breached the collective bargaining agreement's Job Security provision (Article 19) by failing to offer him a transfer to new facilities in Springfield or Champaign with backpay, and that the Union breached its duty of fair representation by mishandling the grievance, sharing negative information about him, and settling without pursuing full arbitration or reinstatement. The court granted summary judgment to both defendants and denied Hardwick's motion for partial summary judgment. It found no genuine issues of material fact, concluding that Sunbelt's transfer offers complied with the CBA's geographic limits and that the Union's actions were reasonable, not arbitrary or in bad faith, and lacked any causal link to proven injury.

labor & employment

The case involves the Village of DePue suing Viacom and related defendants over environmental contamination at a former zinc smelting and fertilizer plant site, seeking relief through common law claims of nuisance and trespass after prior ordinance-based suits were dismissed. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The core reasoning was that the claims were barred by Illinois statutes of limitations, as the village had known or reasonably should have known about the contamination and property damage for many years based on EPA and IEPA investigations, fact sheets, and a 1995 consent order requiring phased remediation, with no basis to apply a later discovery date or tolling. The court also noted the ongoing state-supervised cleanup process under the consent order and federal law.

environmentpropertytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from a 2007 police standoff in which Brian Pitzer, who was suicidal and armed with a shotgun, was fatally shot by an officer after being tasered during an attempt to disarm him; his wife sued multiple local governments and officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment violations, plus state-law battery and indemnification claims. The court denied the motions to dismiss filed by the East Peoria and Peoria County defendants but granted those filed by the Tazewell County and Pekin defendants. It held that the complaint plausibly alleged recoverable damages under Seventh Circuit precedent on wrongful-death-type losses, that certain officers’ actions could support liability, and that other officers’ entry into the home lacked any causal link to the shooting so failed to state a claim. The decision applied the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard and struck certain non-recoverable damage allegations.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case concerns a contract dispute between TAS Distributing and Cummins over royalty payments due under a 1997 license agreement for TAS's engine stop/start technology incorporated into Cummins truck engines, specifically regarding the retrofit version of the ICON product. After the five-year minimum royalty period, TAS claimed additional royalties were owed on sales, while Cummins asserted it had fulfilled obligations and sought to apply credits from excess minimum payments under Section 6(c) of the agreement. The court granted Cummins' motion for partial summary judgment in part by interpreting Section 6(c) to permit crediting of excess minimum royalties against future obligations, but denied it in part because factual disputes over the amount of actual royalties generated during the relevant period prevented calculating the credit. The court also rejected Cummins' argument that TAS's Count II claim for post-2003 royalties was moot.

business & regulatory

This case arose from a licensing dispute between Cummins and TAS over patented technology for engine systems, where Cummins filed suit in 2009 seeking to invalidate two TAS patents, declare the license agreement void for patent misuse, and rescind related contracts based on allegations of prior sales, incorrect inventorship, and title defects. TAS moved for summary judgment, arguing that these claims were barred by res judicata because they could have been raised as defenses or counterclaims in an earlier 2003 lawsuit (TAS I) between the same parties over the same license agreement. The court granted the motion, finding that Cummins knew or should have known the key facts underlying its patent and contract challenges prior to or during TAS I, satisfying the elements of res judicata under Illinois law. It denied Cummins's request to file a surreply and deemed the discovery stay motion moot.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a group of former Illinois State University conference assistants who filed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act alleging that the university failed to pay them overtime wages for hours worked beyond 40 per week during summer 2007 and similar periods. The plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a class consisting of all support employees in university housing conferencing services since May 2006 who worked over 40 hours in a week, along with court-ordered notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. The court granted the motion in part by conditionally certifying a narrower collective action limited to the 2007 conference assistants, finding that the plaintiffs had made a sufficient showing through allegations and evidence that they were similarly situated to other members of that group with respect to their pay and duties. It denied the motion in part by rejecting the broader proposed class definition and requiring some modifications to the proposed notice, while ordering the university to provide contact information for the certified group. The decision applied the two-step approach to FLSA collective actions, emphasizing that the initial certification stage requires only substantial allegations of similarity rather than full proof.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved trustees of an employee welfare benefit fund seeking to enforce a prior ERISA judgment against a dissolved company by suing its alleged alter egos and successors, including Pekin Climate Control and its owners, under ERISA and the LMRA. The court initially dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on Supreme Court precedent in Peacock v. Thomas. Upon reconsideration, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion, vacated the judgment, and permitted the filing of an amended complaint, reasoning that Seventh Circuit precedents treat alter ego claims as involving direct liability rather than veil-piercing, thereby conferring federal jurisdiction.

labor & employmentprocedure

The Village of DePue brought this action against Viacom/CBS and Exxon Mobil, the owner and lessee of a large Superfund site within the Village, alleging that the defendants violated a local hazardous substances ordinance and asserting common-law claims for nuisance and trespass based on historical industrial contamination. The defendants moved to dismiss all claims. The court granted the motion, holding that the Village's ordinance was an invalid exercise of municipal authority under Illinois law because it conflicted with the ongoing state-supervised cleanup under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and related consent order. The court also found the nuisance and trespass claims insufficiently pled or otherwise barred.

environmentbusiness & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case arose from the fatal shooting of Brian Pitzer by a police officer from the Central Illinois Emergency Response Team during a prolonged standoff at his home, after Pitzer had been intoxicated, depressed, and in possession of a shotgun; his wife, as estate administrator, sued the City of East Peoria and the officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an alleged Fourth Amendment violation plus state-law battery. The complaint sought damages for Pitzer's pain and suffering, medical and funeral expenses, and losses of society and companionship claimed by his widow, children, and parents. On the defendants' motion to dismiss or strike, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that certain categories of wrongful-death damages for family members were unavailable under the Illinois statutes incorporated into the federal claims while others remained recoverable.

civil rightstorts & liability

This case arose from a §1983 civil rights action brought by the estate of a prisoner at Menard Correctional Center who allegedly died of hypothermia after being beaten and left in a cold cell by health care staff. The parties participated in mediation focused almost exclusively on the monetary settlement amount, and plaintiff accepted the state defendants' final offer via fax on December 10, 2007. When defendants later sought to add a confidentiality clause during drafting of the written agreement, plaintiff moved to enforce the oral settlement. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granted the motion, and ordered enforcement of the agreement without the confidentiality term. It reasoned that under Seventh Circuit precedent such as Dillard v. Starcon, confidentiality was not a material term because it had never been raised or negotiated during mediation, so the parties had formed an enforceable oral contract on the essential terms discussed.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves a minor student suing a school district, school officials, and other defendants under Title IX for peer sexual harassment at school, along with state-law claims including battery, joint enterprise, and parental responsibility. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after no objections were filed, granting in part several motions to strike by removing requests for attorney fees from the state-law counts and certain paragraphs alleging violations of federal regulations, while denying motions to dismiss the Title IX claims and other requests for more definite statements or to strike additional counts. The reasoning centered on federal pleading standards requiring plausible claims, the unavailability of attorney fees for the state claims at issue, and the potential confusion from referencing federal regulations in a Title IX claim that cannot directly rely on them per relevant precedent.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court's decision in a Chapter 13 proceeding filed by Lonnie McKinney, a disabled veteran who owned a duplex and had fallen behind on real estate taxes sold at auction to Salta Group. McKinney filed for bankruptcy on the final day of the tax redemption period, listing Salta as a creditor, and proposed a plan to pay the delinquent taxes plus interest over time; Salta later obtained a state court tax deed after the redemption period expired but before receiving bankruptcy notice. The bankruptcy court voided the tax deed order and overruled Salta's objection to plan confirmation, finding that the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) barred enforcement of the tax lien. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that the stay prevented Salta from obtaining the deed and that 11 U.S.C. § 1322 permitted the debtor to cure the tax debt through the Chapter 13 plan, with § 108(b) not acting to limit those rights.

taxespropertyprocedurefederal power

This case involves a plaintiff whose IRA was transferred from American Express to new accounts with defendants Cook, ING, and Fidelity, based on representations that the transfers would be tax-free rollovers; instead, multiple redemptions occurred that allegedly triggered tax penalties and involved equity-indexed annuities whose status as securities was disputed. The plaintiff asserted claims including a RICO violation and a federal securities claim. The court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in full after no objections were filed, granting the motion to dismiss the RICO claim on the grounds that the complaint failed to allege a pattern of racketeering activity, which is an essential element under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), while denying dismissal of the remaining claims including the securities claim.

business & regulatorytaxesprocedure

In Walters v. DHL Express, plaintiff James Walters sued DHL for compensation after five boxes he shipped via the carrier arrived damaged or with missing items such as CDs, clothing, DVDs, papers, photographs, and a real estate package. Defendant DHL moved for partial summary judgment to cap damages at the actual cash value of the items or $100 per box, whichever was less, pursuant to a liability limitation in the shipping agreement governed by the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act. The court granted the motion, holding that DHL had validly limited its liability under 49 U.S.C. § 14706 by maintaining applicable rates and obtaining the shipper's agreement, and that the plaintiff failed to show he had successfully purchased additional insurance coverage of $2,000 per box. The decision rested on the absence of any genuine issue of material fact regarding the enforceability of the limitation and the requirements for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a product liability lawsuit brought by plaintiffs Trish McCloud and William Booker against Goodyear Dunlop after a motorcycle tire blowout on May 26, 2002, caused injuries; the plaintiffs alleged a manufacturing defect in the tire's innerliner due to embedded cords from a 'tight carcass' during production, while the defendant attributed the failure to overdeflection from underinflation or overload. The court addressed the defendant's motions to bar the testimony of plaintiffs' experts Gary Derian, William Woehrle, and Alan Kasner under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards, as well as a related motion to strike. The court denied the motion to bar the experts' testimony, allowing them to present their opinions on the manufacturing defect theory and rebuttal points, but granted the motion to strike, limiting Kasner's testimony to avoid duplication and restricting him from directly opining on the manufacturing defect. The reasoning centered on the experts' qualifications, the reliability of their methods based on physical evidence and testing, and the relevance of their testimony to assist the trier of fact in distinguishing between the competing causation theories.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns Great West Casualty Company's effort to obtain a declaratory judgment on its duties under an insurance policy issued to Dekeyser Express in connection with an underlying negligence action (Camp v. TNT Logistics) arising from a workplace injury during a shipment of auto parts. Great West sought rulings that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify TNT Logistics or Trelleborg YSH, and that it could control Dekeyser's defense in related third-party claims while reserving rights. The court granted summary judgment to Great West on the claims involving TNT and Trelleborg, holding that neither qualified as an additional insured absent an "insured contract" between them and Dekeyser that triggered coverage, but denied summary judgment on the defense-control issue, resulting in independent counsel controlling Dekeyser's litigation. The reasoning centered on the policy language, Illinois insurance law, and the absence of any statutory or contractual basis to extend duties to unnamed third parties.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a former employee of Mercantile Bancorp who sought long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed plan insured by Continental Casualty Company after leaving her job as a loan clerk in March 2002 due to multiple sclerosis, irritable bowel syndrome, fatigue, and related symptoms. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding her entitled to benefits, and denied the defendants' cross-motion and related filings. The core reasoning was that the undisputed medical evidence from her treating physician established she met the plan's definition of total disability during the relevant period, as she was continuously unable to perform the substantial duties of her occupation and was under regular physician care, with no evidence supporting the insurer's contrary determination.

labor & employmenthealthcare