District Court, N.D. Illinois — appointed by George H.W. Bush
Narkiewicz-Laine v. Scandinavian Airlines Systems
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2008-09-12 · cited 11×
The case involved a passenger's state-court breach of contract claims against Scandinavian Airlines for a delayed international flight from Dublin to Copenhagen and for refusing to refund or rebook a separate Dublin-to-Oslo ticket after the passenger reported illness. The airline removed the case to federal court, arguing that the Montreal Convention, a U.S. treaty governing international air carriage, completely preempted the state-law claims and conferred federal-question jurisdiction. The court held that the treaty does not completely preempt such claims; instead, its liability limits operate only as an affirmative defense to contract or tort actions, so the claims did not arise under federal law and removal was improper. It therefore remanded the case to the Illinois state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied the airline's related venue-transfer motion as moot.
federal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory
Jefferson v. United States
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2006-09-21 · cited 1×
The case involved Charles Jefferson seeking a refund of approximately $41,431.44 in federal employment taxes he paid to satisfy a trust fund recovery assessment under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 for unpaid taxes by the New Zion Day Care Center, where he served as unpaid president of the board. The court granted summary judgment to the United States, upholding the assessment against Jefferson and denying his refund request. The court reasoned that Jefferson was a responsible person with authority over the organization's financial decisions and acted willfully by recklessly disregarding the known risk that the center was not paying its payroll taxes, despite having access to financial reports indicating the deficiencies and prior instances of tax issues.
taxes
R.V.S., LLC v. City of Rockford
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2003-06-10
The case involved R.V.S., LLC challenging the City of Rockford's zoning ordinance requiring exotic dancing nightclubs to obtain a special use permit and barring permits for locations within 1000 feet of churches, schools, residential districts, or other such clubs, with the plaintiff arguing the measure violated the First Amendment as vague, overbroad, an unlawful prior restraint, improperly adopted, and not justified by secondary effects concerns. The court denied the TRO request and held a bench trial on the injunction claims. It ruled that noncompliance with the city's own procedural rules for text amendments did not invalidate the ordinance under Illinois law absent a federal or state law violation, rejected the procedural due process claim because the ordinance was generally applicable and legislative enactments do not require individualized notice or hearings, and addressed related issues such as publication notice and judicial review availability.
free speechbusiness & regulatoryprocedureproperty
Campuzano v. ILLINOIS STATE BD. OF ELECTIONS
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2003-01-10
This case involved a petition by defendant-intervenors LULAC and AAWG for attorneys' fees and costs from the named state defendants (the Illinois State Board of Elections and redistricting commission members) after the court dismissed the plaintiffs' Voting Rights Act challenge to Illinois' legislative redistricting plan. The intervenors argued that the state defendants, through the Attorney General, failed to defend the plan and effectively aligned with the plaintiffs on some issues, forcing the intervenors to bear the defense costs. The three-judge panel denied the petition, holding that there was no persuasive legal authority under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973l(e) and 1988 to shift fees from prevailing defendant-intervenors to a prevailing named defendant. The court distinguished the case from King v. State Board of Elections due to the lack of unique procedural history that would recast the intervenors as traditional civil rights plaintiffs, and it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an alternative state-law quantum meruit claim.
electionscivil rights
Beloit Liquidating Trust v. United Insurance
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2002-12-23 · cited 6×
The case involved a dispute over whether an insurer remained obligated to defend and indemnify a policyholder for environmental contamination claims arising from a 1991 lawsuit after the policyholder's bankruptcy. The plaintiff, Beloit Liquidating Trust, sued United Insurance Co. for breach of the duty to defend, estoppel from denying coverage, and indemnification under primary and excess policies issued from 1975 to 1984 that contained bankruptcy clauses preserving the insurer's duties. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that the policies were executory contracts rejected under 11 U.S.C. § 365 because they were not assumed in the 1999 bankruptcy proceedings. The court denied the motion, holding that the policies were not executory contracts since the only remaining obligation (payment of retroactive premiums) would not constitute a material breach excusing the insurer's performance under the bankruptcy clauses and retro-premium endorsements. Because the contracts were not executory, the plaintiff was not required to assume them to preserve coverage for occurrences during the policy periods.
business & regulatoryenvironmentfederal power
Campuzano v. ILLINOIS STATE BD. OF ELECTIONS
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2002-05-03
In Campuzano v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections, the Illinois Republican Party and individual voters sued under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to challenge the 2001 state legislative redistricting plan adopted by the Legislative Redistricting Commission, claiming it failed to create enough districts allowing African-American voters to elect candidates of their choice; the plaintiffs also raised but later dismissed constitutional claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois conducted a trial on the merits and rejected the Section 2 claim, finding that the Commission Plan did not violate the Voting Rights Act. The court concluded that the plan created 18 House and 9 Senate districts with African-American voting-age populations sufficient for effective electoral opportunity, supported by evidence from prior elections showing consistent African-American majorities in Democratic primaries and general elections in those districts, and granted a directed verdict dismissing the Latino vote dilution claim for lack of evidence.
electionscivil rights