John Albert Nordberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case involves pre-trial motions in limine filed by both parties in Spiro Tzoumis's lawsuit against Tempel Steel Company, which appears to allege disability discrimination under the ADA related to his termination and other employment actions. The court granted some motions, such as excluding references to previously dismissed counts, evidence of unemployment compensation, and one specific statement about mail handling, while denying others like excluding prior psychological treatment or old performance evaluations, often deferring detailed rulings to trial. For motions on evidence of worker's compensation claims, harassment acts before the charge period, and treating physicians' testimony, the court allowed limited use of such evidence for context or personal observations but not for certain purposes like proving the prima facie case. The reasoning centered on balancing relevance to damages, background context, and potential prejudice against strict evidentiary rules requiring expert disclosure or timeliness of claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved three requests by defendant Hunt Truck Lines, Inc. for attorneys' fees and costs under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) after it prevailed on summary judgment in an ERISA action brought by plaintiff Central States Pension Fund, with the Seventh Circuit affirming the judgment on appeal. The court awarded Hunt a total of $119,552 in attorneys' fees plus specified non-taxable costs across the three requests, covering district court litigation, appellate work, and fee preparation. It evaluated the reasonableness of billing rates and time entries, allowed most requested amounts after addressing objections such as duplicative entries and computerized research expenses, but disallowed secretarial overtime and certain unjustified travel costs. The awards were based on the statute's discretionary authority and evidence of fees actually incurred and billed to clients.

labor & employmentprocedure

This diversity case involved LaSalle National Bank, as trustee for debenture holders of Anchor Glass Container Corporation, challenging the fairness of a court-approved asset sale of Anchor, a former indirect subsidiary of Mexican holding company Vitro. LaSalle alleged that Vitro orchestrated the sale to shift certain pension and environmental liabilities to the buyer, reducing cash proceeds available to debenture holders and violating their contractual rights. Vitro moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), asserting it was a Mexican corporation with no meaningful contacts to Illinois. The court granted the motion, holding that Vitro lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois for either general or specific jurisdiction, as the contacts of its U.S. subsidiaries could not be imputed to it and its own activities in the state were de minimis.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In McKay v. Town and Country Cadillac, Inc., plaintiff A. Robert McKay sued his former employer and its owner under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Americans with Disabilities Act after being terminated shortly after disclosing his alcoholism, and he also brought state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. It dismissed the individual owner from the federal discrimination counts because he was not an "employer" under those statutes, dismissed the emotional-distress claim for insufficient allegations of extreme conduct, and allowed the ADA claim to proceed on the basis of adequately pleaded disability and adverse actions. The court also denied dismissal of the defamation claim, finding the accusation of drunk driving constituted defamation per se with no innocent construction.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

The case involved a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Worldtronics International, an Illinois corporation and owner of a patent for an electronic cycle timer, against Ever Splendor Enterprise, a Taiwanese manufacturer of allegedly infringing coffee makers. Ever Splendor moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting that it had no direct sales, imports, or distributors in Illinois and that it sold products free on board in Taiwan or Hong Kong. The court denied the motion, finding that the defendant had minimum contacts with Illinois because it knew its products entered the U.S. market, including Illinois, through established distribution channels such as sales to Ying Fat that reached Sunbeam/Oster and retailers like Target and Kmart. The court further held that exercising jurisdiction was reasonable given the plaintiff's domicile in Illinois, the state's interest in the dispute, and the defendant's awareness of U.S. legal standards through its dealings.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a claim by Continental Title Company against Peoples Gas under CERCLA to recover response costs for hazardous substance cleanup at a site formerly owned and operated by the defendant as a manufactured gas plant before 1930. Peoples Gas moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that Section 107(a) of CERCLA does not apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct and that retroactive application would violate due process. The court denied the motion, concluding that CERCLA Section 107(a) applies retroactively under the Landgraf framework and longstanding precedent from multiple circuits, including the Seventh Circuit, and that such application does not offend due process.

environmentfederal power

This case involves plaintiff Lisa Trull suing GC Services for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Illinois Collection Agency Act based on four debt collection letters sent regarding a BMG Music Service debt. The court considered the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the Illinois Collection Agency Act claim without prejudice for lack of alleged actual damages, dismissing certain FDCPA claims with prejudice related to specific letter language, and dismissing another count by agreement, while denying dismissal on remaining FDCPA claims. The reasoning centered on whether the letters' language constituted harassment or improper practices under the statutes and the requirements for pleading damages under state law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Hanley v. Trendway Corp., former sales representative Christopher Hanley sued Trendway Corporation to recover commissions on post-termination sales under their 1989 agreement, alleging breach of contract after Trendway terminated the relationship in 1991. The court applied Michigan law per the contract's choice-of-law clause and considered cross-motions for summary judgment on the remaining contract claim. It held that neither party was entitled to summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether Trendway had approved certain projects in writing for commissions and whether letters exchanged around termination formed a new contract or settlement agreement. The court found the letters did not create additional obligations due to lack of consideration under the preexisting duty rule and that the original contract's terms controlled the disputed commissions.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

In Herzog v. NBD Bank of Highland Park, the bankruptcy trustee appealed the dismissal of an adversary proceeding seeking to apply the equitable doctrine of marshaling, requiring NBD to satisfy its secured claims against debtor Milbar by first drawing on a certificate of deposit rather than assets of the bankruptcy estate. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, holding that the trustee failed to plead facts satisfying the single debtor rule or any exception recognized under Illinois law. The court reasoned that the CD was pledged by a non-debtor guarantor, that proposed exceptions such as contribution to capital would erode general limits on marshaling against sureties, and that forcing use of the CD could unduly prejudice the bank given disputed third-party ownership. The opinion reviewed the legal sufficiency of the complaint de novo while accepting well-pleaded facts as true.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a pension fund suing Progressive Driver Services under ERISA and the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act for withdrawal liability after Progressive ceased contributing to the plan in 1994. Progressive filed a third-party claim against Reynolds Metals, alleging Reynolds was the actual employer and responsible for contributions under an oral contract and collective bargaining agreement. The court granted the fund's motion for summary judgment, awarding the unpaid withdrawal liability of $92,194.80 plus interest, fees, and penalties. The reasoning was that Progressive, as the signatory to the collective bargaining agreement, qualified as an employer subject to the arbitration requirement for disputes over withdrawal liability and employer status; its failure to timely initiate arbitration meant the assessment became due and owing, and questions about joint employer status or continued contributions by Reynolds did not create a genuine issue of material fact.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Lynn Compton sued her employer Chinn Enterprises d/b/a Bob Chinn’s Crabhouse and Bob Chinn, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII as well as Illinois state-law claims for assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on alleged unwelcome sexual remarks, touching, threats, and subsequent adverse actions after she filed an EEOC charge. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing among other things that the state tort claims were barred by the exclusive-remedy provision of the Illinois Human Rights Act and that the retaliation count against Chinn individually failed because he was not named in the EEOC charge. The court denied the motions in full, holding that the tort claims rested on independent common-law facts and did not depend on the Act for viability, that Chinn received adequate notice of the charges and was the alter ego of the employer, and that collateral-estoppel and other procedural defenses did not preclude the claims at the pleading stage.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

In Fravel v. Stankus, minor plaintiff Amy Fravel and her mother sued defendants in Illinois state court for negligence after a 1988 injury, settled with some defendants, and then moved to adjudicate a lien asserted by Health Cost Controls as assignee of an ERISA-governed health plan that had paid medical expenses. HCC removed the case to federal district court, invoking ERISA preemption, and plaintiffs moved to remand on grounds including lack of original jurisdiction, lack of consent by other defendants, and untimeliness. The court denied remand, holding that the lien adjudication motion is completely preempted by ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) because it requires construing the plan's subrogation terms, making the action federal in character under Seventh Circuit precedent such as Rice v. Panchal, and rejecting arguments that HCC was not a proper removing party or that other defendants were nominal.

healthcarefederal powerproceduretorts & liability

The case involved federal criminal charges against Janice Madoch for conspiracy to defraud the United States via fraudulent tax refunds, filing false tax refund claims, making false statements in bankruptcy proceedings, and concealing property from creditors and the trustee. The government moved to bar expert psychiatric testimony from Linda Gruenberg and any evidence of the defendant's alleged physical or emotional abuse, on grounds that it was irrelevant to the charged offenses or improperly offered. The court denied the motion in limine but imposed limits, ruling that evidence of the defendant's mental condition at the time of the offenses was admissible to address specific intent, provided experts did not testify to the ultimate issue of intent under Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) and that the proffer remained unchanged.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Leon Dukes, a longtime Illinois Central Railroad employee, who sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act claiming his bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome resulted from the railroad’s negligence in failing to provide safe equipment, training, supervision, and warnings during his work inspecting trains and handling oil cans and signal lights. The railroad moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence it knew or should have known of an unsafe condition, as Dukes was the first car inspector in the company’s 144-year history to file such a claim and his expert’s affidavit was inadmissible. The court granted the motion, finding the affidavit failed to meet Daubert standards and Rule 56(e) requirements by offering only conclusory opinions without supporting reasoning or facts, and that the plaintiff had not raised a genuine issue of material fact on foreseeability or negligence.

labor & employmenttorts & liability