In this case, a pro se prisoner filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1998 guilty plea conviction for murder and conspiracy to commit robbery, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to seek suppression of a confession obtained after an allegedly illegal arrest. The court dismissed the petition as untimely under the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The limitations period began running when the conviction became final in 1998, and the petitioner's argument that it should start later based on newly discovered evidence—a search warrant affidavit obtained in 2006 or 2007—was rejected because the underlying facts about the arrest and search were available earlier through the exercise of due diligence by counsel. Post-conviction proceedings did not toll the expired deadline, and no other exceptions applied.
This case involves an insurance coverage dispute where Nautilus Insurance Company sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify several shell corporations associated with American Community Services against claims of negligent hiring arising from violent crimes committed by their door-to-door magazine salespersons. On remand from the Seventh Circuit, the court determined the choice of law for one corporation, Phoenix Imagery, Inc. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found that Phoenix Imagery's principal place of business was in Indiana based on its incorporation documents, registered agent, and lack of substantial operations in Illinois. Therefore, Indiana law governs the policies, under which negligent hiring does not constitute an 'occurrence,' and summary judgment in favor of Nautilus was proper.
This case was a copyright and unfair competition dispute between Opportunity Knocks, Inc., a designer of promotional cartoon maps, and Bridgette Maxwell and related parties concerning the alleged unauthorized use and sale of similar maps. OKI sued for copyright infringement, Lanham Act violations, and state-law claims including breach of contract and trade secrets violations, while Maxwell counterclaimed with allegations of criminal forgery and deception plus common law unfair competition. The district court ruled on a motion to dismiss two counterclaims and a motion to strike exhibits, granting the motion to strike, denying dismissal of the criminal forgery and deception claim after finding that pecuniary loss had been plausibly alleged under Indiana law, and granting dismissal of the common law unfair competition claim because it was preempted by the federal Copyright Act.
This case involves wrongful death claims brought by Victoria Hays, as representative of Jessica Hays's estate, and Martin Ruiz against Christopher Bardasian and Richard Weigandt. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants' provision of alcohol on July 4, 2008, violated Indiana Code 7.1-5-10-15.5 and contributed to Jessica's death through negligence, joint enterprise, and related theories. Defendant Weigandt moved for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss the claims and cross-claims for failure to state a claim. The court denied all motions, holding that the Second Amended Complaint and cross-claims allege sufficient facts to state plausible claims under federal pleading standards, including that the furnisher's knowledge of intoxication could be inferred from surrounding circumstances. The case proceeds under diversity jurisdiction to allow discovery.
The case involves pro se plaintiffs suing multiple state and local defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after their infant was removed from their custody in February 2007 following a disputed medical appointment at a county health clinic, alleging violations of due process and Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted all seven motions to dismiss filed by the defendants and denied the remaining nondispositive motions as moot. It reasoned that claims against state agencies and officials were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, that the complaint failed to plead plausible claims or a conspiracy under applicable pleading standards, and that statutes such as 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and 18 U.S.C. § 1001 provided no private right of action.
The case involved April Smith, an employee at TJX Companies, who claimed that the company retaliated against her under Title VII after she reported sexual harassment by a regional manager. The court considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim and a request for punitive damages. It denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim, finding it suitable for jury determination due to potential genuine issues of material fact regarding the employer's actions following the report. However, the court granted summary judgment on the punitive damages claim, concluding that the company had made a good faith effort to comply with Title VII and showed no subjective indifference to its obligations.