John W. Reynolds

Plaintiff Ricardo Cardenas, a Milwaukee police officer, sought a hardship waiver from the city's residency requirement under Milwaukee City Charter § 5-02 to live near his two deaf sons who board at the Wisconsin School for the Deaf outside city limits. The Fire and Police Commission denied the waiver after a June 2000 hearing, following prior court remands for further proceedings on Cardenas's state-law certiorari claim. The court reviewed the administrative record and found that the Commission had not adequately justified its denial, that Cardenas lacked an adequate legal remedy, and that the balance of hardships strongly favored granting the exception to permit him to reside with his sons. Accordingly, the court reversed and voided the July 6, 2000 decision, enjoined enforcement of the residency requirement against Cardenas, and ordered the defendants to grant the waiver within 30 days.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfamily lawprocedure

The case involved RE/MAX suing former franchisee Patricia Cook for continuing to use its trademarks and logos after terminating her franchise agreement, alleging a violation of the Lanham Act, while Cook counterclaimed that the termination breached the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law. The court granted RE/MAX's motion for summary judgment on both the main claim and the counterclaim. It found that RE/MAX had properly terminated the franchise by providing notice of default for Cook's failure to sign a valid renewal agreement and allowing more than sixty days to cure by executing either the 1999 or 2000 agreement. Because the termination was lawful, Cook's post-termination use of the marks constituted trademark infringement under federal law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Stanley Person sued attorney Jeffrey Schuster and his law firm under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for sending a collection letter on behalf of a condominium association that sought an unspecified amount of attorney fees in addition to a stated balance of $987.71, without any prior court determination authorizing those fees. Person brought the action as a class action, alleging violations of FDCPA provisions requiring clear disclosure of the debt amount, prohibiting deceptive practices, and banning unfair or unconscionable collection methods. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the allegations were sufficient because a reasonable unsophisticated consumer could view the letter as indicating an indeterminate debt that the defendants had not shown they were entitled to collect at the time it was sent.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a claim by Elmer C. Meyers against his former employer, Lakeland Supply, Inc., alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after his termination. Because the defendant failed to respond to the complaint, Meyers sought a default judgment and requested a jury trial to determine damages under the ADEA's provisions for jury trials on factual issues. The court denied the motion for a jury trial on damages, reasoning that the ADEA does not specifically grant a right to a jury in the context of default judgments, unlike certain other statutes, and that Seventh Circuit precedent does not provide such a right, with the plaintiff failing to show that a jury would be the best method for assessing damages. Instead, the court scheduled a hearing where it would determine the damages based on presented evidence.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case arises from plaintiff John Murray's allegations of tortious conduct, including breach of contract, misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty, by The Loewen Group and related parties in connection with the 1995 sale and later attempted resale of Murray's Wisconsin funeral home businesses. The court addressed motions by The Chubb Corporation and Chubb Insurance Company of Canada to dismiss or for summary judgment on Murray's claims against them as insurers. The court granted Chubb Corporation summary judgment on the ground that it was not an insurer under the relevant policy. The court granted Chubb Insurance's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, applying an "insured v. insured" exclusion in the policy that barred coverage for claims brought by Murray in his capacity as a former officer or director of a Loewen subsidiary against Loewen.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

In Castrejon v. Apfel, the plaintiff sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration's denial of her application for supplemental security income benefits, claiming disability from asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, vision problems, headaches, and Morton's neuroma. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation in full, reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding the case for further administrative proceedings. The court agreed that the plaintiff's waiver of counsel at the hearing was defective, that the administrative law judge failed to sufficiently articulate reasons for her residual functional capacity findings and credibility assessments, and that the ALJ should have applied SSR 00-3p regarding the evaluation of obesity. The decision emphasized that these legal and procedural shortcomings in the administrative process required remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

healthcareprocedure

This case involved RE/MAX North Central suing former franchisee Patricia Cook for continuing to use RE/MAX trademarks and logos after the termination of her franchise agreement, alleging a violation of the federal Lanham Act. The court had previously granted RE/MAX a preliminary injunction barring Cook's use of the marks, and Cook then moved to stay that injunction pending appeal, arguing that RE/MAX had violated the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law by improperly terminating the franchise. The court denied the stay motion, finding that Cook was unlikely to succeed on the merits because RE/MAX had provided proper notice of default and opportunities to cure by signing a valid renewal agreement, that Cook had not shown irreparable harm from the injunction as she could still operate as a real estate agent under another brand, and that a stay would harm RE/MAX's control over its marks and create public confusion. The underlying facts centered on failed negotiations to renew the 1993 franchise agreement, which required a minimum number of sales associates, leading to termination in August 2000.

business & regulatory

RE/MAX North Central, Inc. sued former franchisee Patricia Cook alleging that she continued operating as a RE/MAX affiliate and using its trademarks after the company terminated her franchise agreement for failing to meet sales-associate requirements and sign a renewal contract, in violation of the Lanham Act. The court granted RE/MAX's motion for a preliminary injunction after an evidentiary hearing, ordering Cook to stop using RE/MAX marks, logos, copyrighted materials, and the associated phone number, and to cease operations until she certifies compliance. The ruling rested on findings that the 1993 franchise agreement had been validly terminated, that RE/MAX faced irreparable harm to its goodwill and control over brand quality, that the balance of harms favored RE/MAX, and that the public interest supported avoiding consumer confusion about business affiliations.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Sandra L. Shirk, former CEO of a nonprofit division of defendant Bowling, Inc., who sued under Title VII alleging her termination was due to sex discrimination. Bowling moved for summary judgment, which the court granted after reviewing undisputed facts showing that Shirk was hired for her financial expertise but faced growing complaints from business partners about untimely and inaccurate financial reports and services during 1997. The court found that the decision to terminate her was based on performance deficiencies and partner dissatisfaction rather than her sex, with evidence including similar concerns from female-led partners and the lack of discipline for other female employees involved in related issues. No genuine dispute of material fact existed to support an inference of unlawful discrimination.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Diane Brown suing her former employer, the Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Barber Shop Quartet Singing in America, along with several individual defendants, alleging that her termination violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and asserting related state law claims for assault and battery, false imprisonment, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and defamation arising from workplace incidents. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. The court concluded there was no evidence that age motivated the termination decision, as the employer had documented concerns about Brown's performance, attitude, and ability to work as a team player, and applied the same-actor inference in favor of the defendants. The court also found the state tort claims unsupported by the record or insufficient to create triable issues of fact.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

Plaintiffs Dominic and Joseph Cardenas, deaf children of a Milwaukee police officer, sued the City of Milwaukee and its Fire and Police Commission, alleging that the denial of their father's request for a residency exception violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and their rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of claim and issue preclusion based on a prior related lawsuit brought by the father, in which summary judgment was granted on similar claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss. It reasoned that the sons were not parties to the father's action and had no legal duty to participate, so neither claim nor issue preclusion applies, and the plaintiffs have adequately stated their claims.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

This case is a class action filed in Wisconsin state court alleging that Microsoft engaged in monopolistic activities in violation of law. Microsoft removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction and moved to stay all proceedings pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on whether to transfer the case for coordinated pretrial proceedings with similar actions. The plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court, contending that the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was not satisfied. The court granted the stay, concluding that judicial economy and the avoidance of inconsistent rulings in multiple venues outweighed any asserted prejudice to the plaintiff, and it deferred ruling on the remand motion until after the MDL Panel's decision.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a personal injury claim by plaintiff Robert Nysted, a Wisconsin resident, against defendant Patriot American Hospitality, the owner of a hotel in Aruba, for injuries sustained when he fell while entering an elevator in December 1996. Nysted alleged negligence and violation of Wisconsin's Safe Place Statute, claiming the elevator had stopped below floor level due to overcrowding or defects. The federal district court, applying Wisconsin law under diversity jurisdiction, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action. The court reasoned that Nysted failed to present evidence establishing that Patriot had actual or constructive notice of any hazardous condition with the elevator, which was required to prove both the statutory and common-law negligence claims. Without such notice or proof linking overcrowding to the specific incident, Nysted could not establish essential elements of his case.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a breach-of-contract dispute between Celite and Sterling over a supply agreement for toilets, with Celite later adding a tortious interference claim against Kohler, Sterling's parent company, after Kohler directed Sterling to end the unprofitable agreement and shift production. The court granted Kohler's motion for summary judgment on the tortious interference claim. Applying Wisconsin law and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 769, the court held that Kohler was privileged to act to protect its financial interest in its subsidiary without using wrongful means, even if it also had other motives, as established in Allen & O’Hara v. Barrett. The court rejected Celite's arguments distinguishing the precedent or invoking other Restatement sections.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved Milwaukee police officer Ricardo Cardenas, who requested an exception to the city's residency requirement so he could live near his two deaf sons attending the Wisconsin School for the Deaf. The Fire and Police Commission denied the request, concluding that the Milwaukee City Charter allowed residency exceptions only for marriage to another municipal employee or business necessity, not for family hardship reasons. Cardenas challenged the denial via a state-law certiorari petition, and the court granted his renewed motion for summary judgment after finding the commission's interpretation of the charter provisions too narrow. The court remanded the matter to the commission for a decision on the merits, guided by the ordinance's review standards.

labor & employmentprocedurecivil rights

This case involves a dispute over whether plaintiff Alexis Herman, acting under ERISA, can pursue claims in district court that defendant Daniel Stetler breached fiduciary duties by misusing employee contributions to company 401(k) plans, after both the company and Stetler filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Herman filed an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court to determine nondischargeability of any debt and sought to withdraw that proceeding to the district court, while also moving to appoint an independent fiduciary; Stetler moved to stay the district action. The district court denied the withdrawal motion, referred the matter to Bankruptcy Judge Margaret Dee McGarity, denied the stay as moot, and deferred the fiduciary appointment question to the bankruptcy court. The court reasoned that ERISA issues alone do not mandate withdrawal under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), that permissive withdrawal was not warranted given the bankruptcy context and the need to avoid piecemeal litigation, and that the bankruptcy court could efficiently handle the intertwined bankruptcy and ERISA questions.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Rollie Winter & Associates, a real estate developer, and the Fox River Valley Building & Construction Trades Council over an oral agreement to provide "job targeting" funds to subsidize labor costs on a construction project for a technical college. The plaintiff sued in state court claiming breach of contract and other claims after the defendant refused to provide the funds because non-union subcontractors were used, and the defendant removed the case to federal court under the Labor Management Relations Act. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims, because the evidence showed that the agreement required the use of union contractors and subcontractors, which the plaintiff did not fulfill, with no genuine issue of material fact.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Price v. Wisconsin Services Corp., an African-American employee sued his former employer for racial discrimination and harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging that coworkers used racial epithets, management failed to address complaints, and he was terminated based on a false accusation involving a white female coworker. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies for the Title VII claim, failure to state claims for harassment or disparate treatment, and lack of a contract for the § 1981 claim. The court granted the motion in part by dismissing the Title VII claim because the complaint did not allege that the plaintiff had filed a timely EEOC charge or received a right-to-sue letter, as required by statute and pleading rules. The court denied the motion as to the § 1981 claim, finding that at-will employment does not bar such claims and that the allegations sufficiently stated a claim for racial harassment under the applicable objective and subjective standards.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

In this patent infringement case, Armament Systems & Procedures sued Double 8 Sporting Goods and Double 8 Trading for selling expandable batons that allegedly infringed its patents on baton designs. The parties resolved the dispute through a 1995 consent judgment where Double 8 Trading agreed not to infringe the patents. Years later, upon discovering continued sales of infringing products, the plaintiff moved for civil contempt against Double 8 Trading. The court found Double 8 Trading in civil contempt for violating the consent judgment by selling batons infringing the retaining clip patent until April 1999, based on evidence of sales and the company's admissions, and granted the motion to compel discovery while denying contempt against the individual officer.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Yoho v. Tecumseh Products Co., former employee Wendy Yoho sued her employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging a hostile work environment and constructive discharge based on newspaper articles about her husband's arrest for sexually molesting their daughter and vulgar graffiti in men's restrooms referencing Yoho or her daughter. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court held that the alleged conduct did not constitute discrimination because of sex, as Title VII requires, since the harassment related to the husband's criminal actions rather than Yoho's gender and was not directed at women as a group. The court further found that the incidents were not severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment and that Yoho had not shown the employer failed to respond appropriately.

labor & employmentcivil rights