G. Patrick Murphy

This case arose from a multi-vehicle chain-reaction collision on Interstate 57 in Illinois, in which plaintiff David Payne's car was struck from behind after several semi-trucks collided, and plaintiff Donald Troyer was injured in one of the trucks; the Paynes sued Schneider National Carriers, Inc., along with other truck companies, for negligence, while the companies cross-claimed against each other. Schneider moved for summary judgment, arguing that its truck was stopped at the time of the accident and therefore was only a condition, not a proximate cause, of the plaintiffs' injuries. The court denied the motion, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Schneider's truck made a sudden emergency stop that contributed to the collision. Under the summary-judgment standard, the court could not weigh credibility or resolve conflicting expert opinions about how the accident occurred, so the claims against Schneider must proceed to trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a class action by current and former inmates at Illinois' Tamms supermax prison who alleged that state corrections officials violated their Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights by using inadequate procedures to assign prisoners to the facility. Plaintiffs sought only injunctive and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After an eight-day bench trial, the court addressed as a threshold jurisdictional matter whether the claims had become moot due to the Illinois Department of Corrections' implementation of a Ten-Point Plan reforming aspects of confinement at Tamms. The court reasoned that Article III limits federal jurisdiction to live cases or controversies and that mootness must be evaluated before reaching the merits of the due process claims.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves over sixty plaintiffs suing Johnson & Johnson and affiliated companies for personal injuries allegedly caused by the prescription drug Levaquin, with claims including strict products liability, negligence, fraud, and wrongful death. Originally filed in Illinois state court, the case was removed to federal district court on grounds of federal question jurisdiction (due to a negligence per se claim referencing a federal drug regulation) and diversity of citizenship. The court reviewed subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, applying precedents like Grable & Sons to assess whether the state-law claims implicated a substantial federal question and examining the citizenship of the many parties from different states. Finding potential deficiencies in both asserted bases for jurisdiction, the court ordered the parties to show cause why the case should not be remanded to state court.

proceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

This case involved plaintiffs suing Coca-Cola for allegedly deceptive marketing of "Classic" Coke labeled as "Original Formula," claiming it violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act because the drink now uses high fructose corn syrup instead of sugar, and that Coca-Cola was unjustly enriched. The court granted Coca-Cola's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims as time-barred. The core reasoning was that the three-year statute of limitations for the fraud claim and five-year limit for unjust enrichment had expired, as the plaintiffs knew or should have known the facts years earlier, and Coca-Cola had no duty to disclose due to lack of a fiduciary relationship, with the information being publicly available.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case concerned plaintiffs Gerald and Bette Morisch's attempt to enforce a settlement agreement they reached with defendant Kreisman during a trial on Federal Tort Claims Act negligence and loss of consortium claims against the United States, as well as legal malpractice claims against Kreisman. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement. The core reasoning was that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to address disputes under the settlement agreement because the original supplemental jurisdiction over the malpractice claims ended with the judgment and dismissal, the agreement's terms were not incorporated into the dismissal order to retain enforcement authority, complete diversity of citizenship was absent for an independent jurisdictional basis, and a pending appeal may have further divested the district court of jurisdiction.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves claims by a law firm against a chiropractic center alleging that the defendant sent unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, along with pendent state-law claims for conversion and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The court had previously granted summary judgment to the defendant on the TCPA claim after determining the faxes were informational rather than advertising and had dismissed the state claims without prejudice. On the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), the court denied relief, crediting testimony that the plaintiff had consented to the faxes and finding no false evidence had been submitted. The court then vacated its dismissal of the state claims sua sponte and remanded them to Illinois state court due to lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case involved a parent filing suit in Illinois state court on behalf of his autistic minor son, seeking an injunction under Section 14-6.02 of the Illinois School Code to require a school district to allow the child to bring a service dog to school. The school district removed the action to federal district court, asserting federal question jurisdiction on the ground that the claim implicated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that the complaint asserted only a state-law cause of action with no federal issue appearing on its face. Applying the well-pleaded complaint rule and the principle that removal statutes are narrowly construed, the court concluded that federal subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case is a putative class action brought by Illinois consumers against Coca-Cola, alleging that the company deceptively marketed its classic soft drink as the "original formula" sweetened with sugar when it was actually sweetened with high fructose corn syrup, in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and under an unjust enrichment theory. After removal to federal court on diversity grounds, the plaintiffs moved to strike Coca-Cola's jury demand on the statutory claims. The court denied the motion, holding that Coca-Cola was entitled to a jury trial. The core reasoning was that, although Illinois law provides no jury right on ICFA claims, the Seventh Amendment controls in federal court and applies to these legal claims for damages, regardless of any accompanying request for equitable relief.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves consolidated class actions brought by plaintiffs from several states against YTB International and its subsidiaries and executives, alleging that the company's business of selling online travel agencies through a multi-level marketing structure violates the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by operating as an illegal pyramid scheme and chain referral sales technique. The court addressed defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and the motion by REZconnect and Michael Brent to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the personal jurisdiction motion, holding that REZconnect and Brent lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois to support either general or specific jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause and Illinois long-arm statute, as their activities were limited and not purposefully directed at the forum. The court also denied plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery, finding the existing record adequate to show the absence of jurisdiction.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Charles J. Bourda's state-court claims against his former employers and a supervisor for breach of contract, fraud, negligence, and violations of the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act, arising from his termination as a vehicle loader; he alleged the termination was based on false claims of no work available in order to hire cheaper immigrant labor, misrepresentations about union coverage that deprived him of representation and benefits, and false statements about voluntary termination that cost him unemployment benefits. The case was removed to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand to state court, holding that the complaint asserted only state-law claims that did not arise under federal law under the well-pleaded complaint rule and were not subject to complete preemption by federal labor statutes.

labor & employmentprocedurefederal power

This case was a Federal Tort Claims Act medical malpractice suit by the estate of David Grizzell against the United States, claiming that the VA Hospital in St. Louis negligently failed to provide adequate post-operative instructions on wound care and signs of infection after surgery to repair a knee fracture with an external fixation device. The court, applying Missouri law, found that the standard of care required such instructions to enable the patient to prevent or mitigate infection risks, that the VA breached this duty by failing to give them, and that the breach proximately caused the severe infection, amputation, and related damages. It rejected the government's arguments on the standard of care and credibility of testimony about instructions given, and awarded the plaintiff $508,399 in damages.

healthcaretorts & liabilityfederal power

This case involves multiple plaintiffs from different states who filed suit in Illinois state court against pharmaceutical manufacturers and several pharmacies, alleging personal injuries from use of the Ortho Evra contraceptive patch and asserting claims for strict liability, negligence, breach of warranties, fraud, and violations of consumer protection statutes, along with derivative loss-of-consortium claims. The manufacturer defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, contending that the non-diverse Illinois pharmacy defendants had been fraudulently joined. The court addressed the plaintiffs' motion to remand for lack of complete diversity and the defendants' request to stay the proceedings pending transfer to multidistrict litigation in Ohio. It declined to grant a stay, determined that it would apply Illinois substantive law to evaluate the fraudulent-joinder issue including the learned-intermediary doctrine, and noted skepticism toward the fraudulent-misjoinder doctrine while observing that liberal joinder rules generally apply under state procedural standards.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved property owners, including a Jehovah's Witnesses congregation, challenging the City of Marion's annexation and rezoning ordinances that permitted Karco Recycling to operate an automobile-shredding facility on adjacent land. The plaintiffs brought federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of substantive and procedural due process, along with related state-law claims seeking to invalidate the ordinances. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that the constitutional claims were unripe for federal adjudication because the plaintiffs had not exhausted available state-law remedies such as quo warranto actions or appeals to the zoning board. The court further declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state claims. The decision rested on the requirement that plaintiffs must pursue adequate state remedies before raising due process challenges to land-use regulations in federal court.

civil rightspropertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a personal injury lawsuit filed in Illinois state court by Charles Asperger and his wife against Shop Vac Corporation and Sears Holdings Corporation, alleging that a Shop Vac device caused an explosion leading to severe burns and property damage. Shop Vac removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, but the court examined whether complete diversity existed given that the plaintiffs and Sears are likely Illinois citizens. The court determined that Sears was not fraudulently joined, as there was a possibility of a valid claim against it, and thus diversity was incomplete. Consequently, the court remanded the case to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves two consolidated actions in which plaintiff Richard Disher brought putative class claims under state law against Citigroup Global Markets, alleging that the firm disseminated misleading research reports on certain stocks that induced investors to hold shares. After a complex procedural history involving prior removals under SLUSA, appeals, a Supreme Court decision in Kircher, and multiple mandates, Citigroup attempted new removals to federal court in 2007. The court granted the plaintiff's motions for remand, holding that the removals suffered from procedural defects under federal removal statutes and that jurisdiction had properly returned to state court following execution of the appellate mandates. The decision rested on the rules governing successive removals and the limits on federal jurisdiction after remand orders.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves plaintiff Richard Disher bringing a class action in Illinois state court against Citigroup Global Markets, alleging that the firm disseminated materially misleading investment research reports and ratings on Internet and telecom stocks. Citigroup removed the case to federal court asserting jurisdiction under diversity, federal question, bankruptcy, and SLUSA preclusion provisions, but the district court remanded it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After multiple appeals and Supreme Court intervention clarifying that appellate review of SLUSA-based remands is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, leading the district court to execute the remand. Citigroup then moved for reconsideration and vacatur of the remand order under Rule 60, along with oral argument. The court denied both motions, concluding that the procedural history and jurisdictional rules precluded further federal adjudication and that oral argument was unnecessary.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Vogel v. Merck & Co., Inc., the plaintiff joined other individuals in suing Merck and two pharmacies in Illinois state court for personal injuries allegedly caused by the prescription drug Vioxx. After the state court severed the claims of several plaintiffs including Vogel, Merck removed the case to federal court a second time, asserting diversity jurisdiction. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, finding a lack of complete diversity of citizenship because the state-court severance did not create separate actions eliminating the non-diverse pharmacy defendants for jurisdictional purposes, and also identifying a procedural defect in the removal. Merck's requests for a stay pending multidistrict litigation transfer and for a hearing were denied.

proceduretorts & liability

This case is a putative class action by shareholders of Putnam Investment Funds alleging that the fund managers breached state-law duties by allowing market timing practices that exploited pricing inefficiencies and harmed long-term investors. Originally filed in Illinois state court, the case was removed to federal court under SLUSA, remanded, appealed through multiple levels including the Supreme Court, and then removed a second time by defendants. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court. The reasoning centered on the second removal being untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), as SLUSA removals are subject to ordinary federal removal procedures and no qualifying new paper had triggered a fresh thirty-day period.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from an alleged sexual assault of a sixth-grade student at a Cahokia, Illinois middle school by a classmate serving after-school detention in 2004, followed by an investigation in which a school resource officer interviewed the student without her mother's consent and conducted a limited physical exam. The plaintiff brought federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process and Fourth Amendment rights against the school district, principals, officer, sheriff, and county, plus Illinois state-law claims for false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Earlier, the court dismissed the state tort claims and official-capacity claims; on summary judgment, it granted judgment to all defendants on the remaining federal claims and denied the plaintiff's reconsideration motions. The core reasoning was that no special relationship or state-created danger created a duty to protect the student from third-party harm under the Due Process Clause, the interview did not constitute an unreasonable seizure, and there was no evidence of an official policy or custom supporting municipal liability under Monell.

civil rightstorts & liability

In Smith v. Merck & Co., Inc., the plaintiff filed suit in Illinois state court against Merck, the manufacturer of Vioxx, and Walgreens, the pharmacy that filled her prescriptions, alleging personal injuries from the drug under theories including strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. Merck removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, but the plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that complete diversity was lacking because both she and Walgreens are Illinois citizens. The court granted the remand, holding that Walgreens was not fraudulently joined because the plaintiff's claims against it, particularly for breach of warranty, were viable under Illinois law, and the learned intermediary doctrine did not preclude liability in a way that supported fraudulent joinder. Therefore, the case lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction and was returned to state court.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare