District Court, N.D. Illinois — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Janusz v. City of Chicago
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2011-06-24 · cited 1×
The case involves plaintiff Thomas Janusz's claims under § 1983 and state law for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and related torts after his December 2001 drug arrest by Chicago police officers, which a state court later found lacked probable cause. The arrest stemmed from an anonymous tip about a narcotics transaction, with disputed facts about a female passenger's role and whether officers planted evidence. After a prior state-court recovery against his employer for related harms, defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing among other things that emotional distress damages were already compensated and indivisible. The court declined to grant summary judgment eliminating those damages claims or fully resolving apportionment issues, citing insufficient briefing and the need to avoid double recovery while leaving the matter for the trial judge to address.
civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability
Sound of Music Co. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2005-09-27
The case centered on Sound of Music Co., a longtime dealer for 3M's background music services, suing after 3M terminated the 1995 dealer contract in 1997 upon exiting the business for strategic reasons, citing a termination clause. Sound of Music alleged breaches of implied and statutory duties to continue performance and claimed that 3M's promotional statements fraudulently induced it to sign the contract and buy downlink equipment while concealing its exit plans. Before the court were 3M's motion for summary judgment on the four counts in the amended complaint and Sound of Music's motion for leave to add a fifth count asserting a fraud claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The court granted summary judgment to 3M, finding the contract permitted termination, the statute of limitations barred franchise act claims, and insufficient evidence supported the fraud allegations or reasonable reliance.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability
Watson v. CBSK Financial Group, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2002-03-27 · cited 1×
In Watson v. CBSK Financial Group, Inc., plaintiffs who obtained home mortgages through broker AHL from lender Citi challenged the payment of yield spread premiums (YSPs) by Citi to AHL, alleging that these payments violated RESPA's prohibition on kickbacks and referral fees under 12 U.S.C. § 2607, breached fiduciary duties, violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and exceeded the 1% FHA fee limit in class and individual claims. The court granted Citi's motion to dismiss and AHL's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the class RESPA claim (Count V), class consumer fraud claim (Count VI), and breach of contract claim (Count VIII), but denied the motions as to the remaining individual claims. Dismissal of Count V rested on the conclusion that YSPs are not subject to the 1% FHA ceiling and do not constitute unreasonable fees under RESPA; Count VI was dismissed for failure to state a claim independent of the RESPA allegations; and Count VIII was dismissed because the contracts did not restrict fees paid by Citi and the claim duplicated the RESPA counts. The other counts survived because they were adequately pled under Rule 8 or were not challenged.
business & regulatorypropertyprocedure
Anglin v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2001-06-07 · cited 3×
This case involves plaintiff Anglin's ERISA Section 510 claim against defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co., alleging that his termination was intended to interfere with his attainment of benefits under a reduction-in-force plan. The district court reviewed objections to a magistrate judge's rulings on multiple motions in limine under the clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard. The court upheld most of the magistrate's decisions, including barring the plaintiff's expert witness and undisclosed witnesses due to discovery failures, while allowing certain lay testimony on company policies and rejecting an attempt to bar evidence that the plaintiff was a plan participant. It modified the order in two respects by granting the plaintiff's motion to exclude the defendant's expert witness for failure to provide a required written report under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, since the justification tied to rebutting the plaintiff's expert no longer applied, and by granting the defendant's motion to exclude evidence of speculative lost opportunity damages, such as second-career earnings, that were not recoverable as equitable relief under ERISA. The parties were directed to a status hearing.
labor & employmentprocedure
United States v. One 1992 Lexus Sc400 Vin Jt8uz30c2n0017133
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2001-05-12 · cited 1×
This case involves the government's civil forfeiture action against a 1992 Lexus, diamond tennis bracelet, and diamond ring given by convicted drug trafficker Vernon Harrison to his girlfriend Keshia Oates, which the government claimed were purchased with drug proceeds under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). Oates moved for summary judgment asserting the innocent owner defense, arguing she did not affirmatively consent to Harrison's illegal activities and lacked sufficient knowledge of them at the time she received the items. The court denied Oates' motion, holding that the innocent owner defense's consent prong does not protect post-illegal-act transferees like her under the statute's text and legislative history, while also addressing factual disputes on the knowledge prong for the government's cross-motion. The ruling turned on statutory interpretation of when knowledge or consent is measured for after-acquired property in forfeiture proceedings.
criminal lawpropertyprocedure
Bazewick v. Chao
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2001-04-30
In Bazewick v. Chao, a federal employee alleged sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, as well as disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, claiming his female supervisors treated him differently than a female coworker, failed to accommodate his hypertension, and placed an unjustified reprimand in his file after he filed an EEOC complaint. The defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the allegations failed to state viable claims, particularly regarding similarly situated employees, adverse actions, and material changes in employment. The court denied the motion in full, holding that the complaint met notice pleading standards as clarified in Bennett v. Schmidt, with at least one count clearly sufficient and the others close enough to proceed rather than requiring immediate dismissal and repleading. The core reasoning emphasized that complaints need not plead every fact or element at the outset, that discovery should follow, and that arguments like those raised are better addressed at summary judgment with a developed record.
labor & employmentcivil rights