The case concerned The American Insurance Company's action for declaratory judgment that its commercial general liability policy issued to Crown Packaging International did not cover Crown's claim for indemnification of approximately $454,000 in chargebacks taken by Crown's customer Ecolab for defective plastic containers that caused date-code and graphics problems with Ecolab's soap products after filling. The court resolved cross-motions for summary judgment on coverage issues, including whether the events qualified as property damage from an occurrence under the policy. The court concluded that damage to and loss of use of Ecolab's soap constituted covered property damage because it involved tangible property other than the containers themselves, distinguishing precedents that found no occurrence when only the insured's product was affected.
In this case, pro se plaintiff Joseph Trzeciak sued State Farm Fire & Casualty Company for refusing to cover property damage he allegedly sustained during his 2004 arrest by Hammond police, when the property was insured under a State Farm policy. The court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims against it, while allowing the plaintiff to amend his complaint against another party. The core reasoning was that the insurance policy required any lawsuit to be filed within one year of the loss (extended by agreement to December 29, 2005), but the complaint was not filed until August 2010; the court found no basis to toll the contractual limitations period due to the plaintiff's incarceration or his attorneys' actions under Indiana law, and the plaintiff's submissions failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact.
In Rivas v. Martin, the plaintiff sued the LaGrange County Sheriff and jail officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that her detention in the county jail after she posted bond on a state felony charge violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights because it exceeded the 48-hour limit specified in an ICE immigration detainer. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that no constitutional violation arose from the regulation and that any right was not clearly established. The court denied the motion, holding that the complaint adequately alleged the defendants lacked authority to detain Rivas beyond the detainer's expiration and that her right to be free from unauthorized detention was clearly established under existing precedent. The core reasoning was that the detainer imposed an express temporal limit on custody, the plaintiff had satisfied all state release conditions, and the defendants provided no alternative legal basis for continued holding after the 48-hour period expired.
In this case, high-end repossessor Nick Popovich and his company sued freelance journalist Mark Weingarten for claims including breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets arising from interviews about repossession work and a subsequent magazine article. Weingarten filed counterclaims for defamation and interference with prospective business advantage, alleging that Popovich made false statements to others in the entertainment industry about the disclosure of confidential information. Popovich moved to dismiss the counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion, holding that Weingarten's allegations were sufficient to meet the plausibility standard under Rule 8 and that Indiana's choice-of-law rules supported applying California law to the tort claims without rendering them deficient.
In Graber v. Mad Brewer, Inc., plaintiff Corry L. Graber sued her former employer for gender discrimination after her termination as general manager, alleging she was replaced by a male assistant manager, as reflected in her EEOC charge. Defendant Mad Brewer moved for summary judgment, arguing that undisputed facts showed no genuine issue for trial on the discrimination claim. The court granted the motion, ruling that the plaintiff had not properly disputed many of the defendant's material facts under Local Rule 56.1 despite partial compliance via affidavit citations, leading those facts to be deemed admitted, and that the remaining evidence failed to create triable issues.
In Sims v. Humane Society of St. Joseph County Indiana, African-American plaintiffs alleged that the Humane Society and a veterinary clinic discriminated against them on the basis of race when denying their application to adopt a dog, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982 as well as Title II, Title VI, negligence, and contract theories. The district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). It dismissed the Title II, Title VI, and most other claims for failure to state a plausible cause of action or lack of standing, while allowing the §§ 1981 and 1982 claims against the Humane Society and Parrett defendants to proceed. The court reasoned that the complaint's factual allegations of differential treatment and pretextual denial met the plausibility standard for those civil rights statutes but not for the dismissed counts.