James Byron Moran

This case concerns a licensing agreement under which Geneva International Corporation received the exclusive right to use the PETROF trademark in the United States through December 31, 2012, in exchange for financial support provided to the Czech piano manufacturer Petrof, Spol, S.R.O. After earlier disputes, the parties signed the license along with settlement and other agreements; defendant later notified plaintiff of its intent to terminate the related distributorship contract and to sell PETROF pianos in the United States through its own subsidiary. Plaintiff renewed its motion for summary judgment on its claim of anticipatory breach of the license. The court entered a Rule 56(d) order establishing defendant's liability, concluding that the license contained no termination provision before its end date and that the parties did not intend the withdrawal clause from the distributorship contract to apply to the license.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a class of former Allstate employee-agents who sued the company and its Agent Transition Severance Plan, alleging violations of ERISA and breach of contract arising from new operational standards imposed on neighborhood office agents (NOAs) under a 1998 IRS closing agreement. These standards included restrictions on expenses, full-time work requirements, office hours, and management practices, which plaintiffs claimed were designed to force conversions to independent contractor Exclusive Agency status. Allstate moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, finding insufficient evidence that the changes were a pretext to pressure agents or that they breached contractual obligations or ERISA duties, as many agents could comply, the standards applied uniformly, and no intent to force resignations was shown.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Zboralski v. Monahan, plaintiff Geneva Zboralski sued several employees of an Illinois treatment and detention facility in their individual capacities, claiming that pat-down searches she underwent while visiting her civilly committed husband in 2005 violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and constituted invasion of privacy as well as assault and battery. The defendants moved for summary judgment and to strike portions of the plaintiff's evidence. The court granted the motion to strike certain hearsay statements and unsupported characterizations, granted summary judgment to defendants Monahan and Budz as well as on the invasion of privacy claim, denied summary judgment as to defendant Martin because factual disputes existed over whether her pat-down involved intentional touching of the plaintiff's vaginal area that could constitute willful or wanton conduct, and continued the motion as to the remaining defendants.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Thomas Santora suing Starwood and related entities for negligence after he tripped and fell on a carpet runner at the Hotel Danieli-Venice in Italy in 2004. After initially suing Starwood and later adding Sheraton LLC (formerly ITT Sheraton) and Sheraton International as defendants based on corporate structure information, those two entities moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motions, holding that the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction under Illinois' long-arm statute and the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendants' licensing of franchises in Illinois did not constitute systematic and continuous contacts sufficient to satisfy due process, and exercising jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involves a copyright infringement suit by plaintiff Rudnicki against WPNA 1490 AM for unauthorized use of his radio broadcasts from 2004 and 2006. The plaintiff sought to prevent the defendants from arguing that his works were not registered, claiming that his September 5, 2006 application registered the relevant broadcasts. The court denied the motion in limine, reasoning that for foreign-originated works seeking statutory damages, proper registration under 17 U.S.C. § 408 requires depositing complete copies of each work, not just representative samples, so only the six submitted broadcasts were registered. The court also noted that the plaintiff provided no evidence identifying those six broadcasts or special leave from the Register of Copyrights.

propertyprocedure

Ace Rent-A-Car sued its insurers Empire and National for a declaration that they owed duties to defend and indemnify it against a state-court class action alleging that Ace and a travel agency sent unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the TCPA as well as claims for conversion and Illinois consumer fraud. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on the insurance policies' advertising-injury and property-damage coverage provisions. The court denied Ace's motion and granted the insurers' motions, holding that the policies did not cover the underlying claims because the faxes were not an "advertising injury" that violated privacy rights and did not constitute an "occurrence" or "accident," with an additional ruling that National was relieved of any duty due to Ace's multi-year delay in providing notice.

business & regulatory

Plaintiff Thomas Santora sued Starwood Hotel & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. and affiliated entities for negligence after he tripped and fell on a carpet runner while staying at the Hotel Danieli-Venice in Italy, alleging that the hotel acted as Starwood’s agent. Starwood moved for partial summary judgment on the agency claim, contending that the plaintiff had not produced evidence of an agency relationship. The court denied the motion, holding that evidence of marketing materials linking the hotel to Starwood’s brand and the plaintiff’s testimony that he chose the hotel to use his Starwood points created genuine issues of material fact regarding apparent authority and reasonable reliance. The court applied Illinois apparent-authority doctrine and declined to strike the plaintiff’s response for minor local-rule noncompliance given the slim record and adequate support for the facts presented.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Illinois Bell Telephone Company (AT&T) sued multiple municipalities over local ordinances imposing moratoriums on permits for ground-mounted utility cabinets needed for its Project Lightspeed fiber-optic network upgrades, as well as video franchise requirements and zoning rules affecting use of public rights-of-way and easements. The complaints alleged violations of state and federal statutes plus constitutional claims including due process and First Amendment rights. The municipalities moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion in part, finding that the well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, sufficiently stated claims for relief under certain statutory and constitutional provisions relating to the placement of telecommunications equipment.

business & regulatoryfree speechcivil rightsproperty

In United States v. Henderson, defendants were charged with conspiracy to launder money derived from narcotics trafficking through real estate purchases and one defendant was separately charged with a monetary transaction involving criminally derived property. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the five-year statute of limitations had expired because the conspiracy ended in November 2002 and that the indictment failed to adequately allege the elements of the offenses. The court denied the motions. It reasoned that the scope of the conspiracy, as alleged in the indictment, included a transaction in February 2003 when a corrected deed was filed, making the February 2008 indictment timely, and that the indictment sufficiently set forth the required elements of the charges to apprise the defendants of the accusations.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a post-trial motion by defendants eSpeed alleging that plaintiff Trading Technologies committed inequitable conduct before the PTO by failing to disclose the inventor's commercial use of the patented trading software between March and June 1999. The court denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that eSpeed failed to prove inequitable conduct by clear and convincing evidence. Although the inventor engaged in commercial trading during the relevant period, the court found this information immaterial because TT had properly claimed and was entitled to the March 2000 provisional priority date, which the jury and court had confirmed as correct, and the examiner had not challenged it despite relevant disclosures. The court further determined that TT's response to the examiner's Rule 1.105 request was appropriate and did not withhold material information.

propertyprocedure

This case involves former Allstate insurance agents who alleged that the company imposed new work requirements to force them to retire, terminate, or convert to independent contractor status before the rollout of a new Agent Transition Severance Plan (ATSP), in order to avoid paying ERISA benefits. Plaintiffs brought claims under ERISA Section 510 against the Plan and a breach of contract claim against Allstate, asserting violations of good faith and fair dealing in their employment contracts. The court granted the Plan's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that the Plan was not a proper defendant under Section 510, faced no direct allegations, and did not exist when the relevant events occurred. It denied Allstate's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim as preempted by ERISA, reasoning that the class action structure and bifurcation of liability and damages phases made it impossible to determine at this stage which plaintiffs sought non-ERISA damages like conversion benefits, and that ERISA preemption should not bar recovery of damages unrelated to employee benefit plans.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Hold Fast Tattoo sued the City of North Chicago after the city council denied its application for a special use permit to open a tattoo studio, claiming violations of equal protection, substantive and procedural due process, and that the zoning ordinance exceeded the city's police powers on its face and as applied. The court denied the city's motion to dismiss the due process claims for lack of standing, finding no exhaustion requirement applied because no Fifth Amendment takings claim was alleged. However, the court granted the city's motion to dismiss all claims for failure to state a claim, reasoning that tattooing is not protected expressive conduct under the First Amendment, the equal protection claim therefore lacked a fundamental right, and the zoning ordinance was rationally related to legitimate municipal interests in health and safety.

business & regulatoryfree speechcivil rights

This case involved Sabri Ibrahim Samirah, a Jordanian citizen who entered the U.S. on a student visa in 1987, overstayed, and had pending applications to adjust status to lawful permanent resident. While abroad on advance parole granted by the INS, the Attorney General revoked the parole on security grounds, barring his return and leading Samirah to sue for habeas, declaratory, and injunctive relief on due process grounds. The district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, ordering the Attorney General to permit his return to the U.S. for a removal hearing or to initiate such proceedings within 60 days. The core reasoning was that 8 U.S.C. § 1229a requires a removal hearing before an immigration judge for lawfully admitted aliens, a right not extinguished by travel on advance parole, and that the APA authorizes courts to compel the withheld hearing.

immigrationcivil rightsprocedure

Mary Ellen Harris sued Viad Corp. and other defendants in Illinois state court, claiming that her husband died from asbestos exposure during Navy service on evaporators manufactured by Viad's predecessor. Viad removed the case to federal court under the Federal Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), asserting a military contractor defense based on Navy specifications for equipment and warnings. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that Viad satisfied the statute's requirements by demonstrating it was a person acting under a federal officer, a causal nexus to its actions, and a colorable federal defense under the Seventh Circuit's military contractor standard from Oliver v. Oshkosh Truck Corp.

proceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

The case involved a dispute between Geneva International Corporation, an exclusive U.S. distributor of Petrof pianos, and Petrof, a Czech piano manufacturer, over an exclusive trademark licensing agreement for the PETROF mark in the United States through 2012, which was executed alongside a settlement agreement and amendments to their exclusive sales contract. Geneva claimed anticipatory breach by Petrof and sought summary judgment on that count, while Petrof cross-moved for summary judgment; Geneva also moved for a preliminary injunction to bar Petrof from using the mark in the U.S. The court denied all motions, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the interpretation of the license and contract provisions, particularly whether any breach of the underlying contract would terminate the license rights. The court further held that Geneva had not demonstrated irreparable harm specifically tied to the license or that the balance of equities favored an injunction, especially given pending arbitration in the Czech Republic that could affect the parties' relationship.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved antitrust claims by American Needle against the New Orleans Saints and related defendants regarding the licensing of trademarks. The court had previously granted summary judgment on some counts and now grants it on the remaining counts I and III. The decision rests on the finding that the defendants operate as a single entity in licensing intellectual property, which allows them to license to one or many parties without violating monopolization laws under section 2.

business & regulatory

This case involves a putative class action by Larry Follman against Hospitality Plus of Carpentersville, Inc., operating as a Culver’s restaurant, alleging a willful violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by printing the full expiration date on computer-generated credit card receipts after the statutory compliance deadline. The defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the allegations did not plausibly state a willful violation under the pleading standard from Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and that any noncompliance was not willful. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint adequately alleged facts showing the defendant’s knowledge of FACTA requirements through notifications from card networks and industry groups, yet failure to comply. The core reasoning was that willfulness under the Fair Credit Reporting Act includes knowing or reckless violations, the statute’s plain language clearly prohibits printing the expiration date, and the pleaded facts raised the claim above a speculative level.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Lou Anne Maes filing an unopposed motion to reconsider the court's prior dismissal of her claim for punitive damages under the Illinois State Officials and Employees Ethics Act. The court had initially interpreted the Act's remedies provision as allowing only compensatory damages to make the employee whole but, upon reconsideration, focused on the separate language authorizing all remedies necessary to prevent future violations. It decided to reinstate the punitive damages claim, reasoning that such damages serve the statutory goal of deterrence, consistent with Illinois Supreme Court precedent defining punitive damages as punishment and a warning to deter similar conduct.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs filing an intellectual property lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois against a defendant based in southeastern Michigan, despite the parties' long-standing business relationship indicating limited contacts in Illinois. After the defendant contested personal jurisdiction, the plaintiffs moved to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Michigan. The court granted the defendant's request for recovery of over $50,000 in fees and costs incurred during the jurisdictional dispute, finding that the suit lacked any plausible basis for jurisdiction or venue in Illinois from the outset. The reasoning centered on the plaintiffs' awareness that the defendant's operations and the alleged infringement were localized in Michigan, with neither the passive website nor unrelated supply purchases establishing sufficient contacts, and the case inevitably requiring transfer regardless.

procedure

This case involves a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee suing LaSalle Bank, Midwest Freightways, and its owner Rogulic over claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and unjust enrichment stemming from a revolving loan agreement secured by accounts receivable; the trustee alleged that loan advances were improperly directed to Midwest and other entities controlled by Rogulic, depleting K&R's assets. The defendants moved to withdraw the reference of the adversary proceeding from bankruptcy court to the district court. The court granted the motion, holding that the remaining claims were non-core state-law matters for which the defendants had demanded jury trials without consenting to bankruptcy court jurisdiction, and that all claims should be tried together in one forum for efficiency and convenience.

procedurebusiness & regulatory