Robert Willis Warren

This case involved plaintiff Maria Davalos, a Hispanic woman hired by defendant Jacobsen Division of Textron as a probationary assembly worker, who was terminated shortly after calling in sick for four days. Davalos sued under Title VII alleging race and sex discrimination, pointing to her performance review and the retention of a white male colleague hired around the same time. On summary judgment, the court granted the motion as to the race discrimination claim, finding insufficient evidence that race motivated the termination decision, but denied it as to the sex discrimination claim because the record raised triable issues of disparate treatment based on gender. The court also denied summary judgment on the issue of mitigation of damages, holding that questions about the adequacy of Davalos's job search efforts and her family-based employment required resolution by a jury. The case was transferred for further proceedings before another judge.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case arose from the plaintiffs' purchase of a cheese manufacturing company, which they alleged was induced by two specific misrepresentations by the defendant bank at a 1984 meeting regarding the company's losses and liquidity; the purchase led to bankruptcy, and the bank counterclaimed on personal guaranties for unpaid debts. After a jury trial, the jury found for the plaintiffs on both intentional and negligent misrepresentation claims as well as their defense to the counterclaim. The court denied the bank's Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable jury to find the statements were factual misrepresentations on which the plaintiffs justifiably relied to their detriment. The court also denied the Rule 59 motion for a new trial, finding no prejudicial errors or verdict against the great weight of the evidence. The case was then transferred for further proceedings on damages.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

Bradley Corporation, a Wisconsin manufacturer, sued its insurer Zurich Insurance Company in this diversity case for breaching its duty to defend Bradley in an underlying federal employment discrimination lawsuit brought by former employee Edna Sarafolean under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. Zurich had denied coverage and refused to defend after receiving notice of the suit more than ten months after service of the complaint, citing untimely notice and lack of policy coverage. The court denied Zurich's motion for summary judgment in full, holding that Wisconsin statutes governing late notice in insurance policies require the insurer to demonstrate actual prejudice from any delay, that factual disputes existed on prejudice and timeliness, and that Bradley's notice fell within the one-year statutory window.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a dispute over a licensing agreement for the board game Clever Endeavor between MindGames, the licensor, and Western Publishing, the licensee. MindGames sued Western for breach of contract and sought damages including $40 million in lost profits. The court granted Western's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that under Arkansas law, MindGames could not recover anticipated lost profits because it was a new business without a history of profitability, making such damages unduly speculative. The decision relied on the New Business Rule, which requires reasonable certainty in proving lost profits, a standard not met by unestablished ventures.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a former employee who sued his employer under Title VII, alleging that he was subjected to same-sex sexual harassment by a male coworker in an all-male workplace and was terminated in retaliation for complaining about the conduct. The court considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment, first addressing whether same-sex harassment claims are cognizable under Title VII. The court held that such claims are possible but found that the plaintiff's allegations did not rise to the level of actionable harassment, as the conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive and was not based on gender. The court further determined that the plaintiff failed to show the employer's stated reason for termination—violating a rule against striking another employee during a fight—was a pretext for retaliation.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case concerns a commercial dispute in which Maryland Staffing Services, a Manpower franchisee, alleged that the franchisor overcharged for workers' compensation and liability insurance beginning in 1987, thereby reducing the franchisee's compensation under their agreement. The plaintiffs, including the company's individual owners, asserted nineteen claims including RICO violations, antitrust violations, breaches of franchising laws, and various tort and contract claims. The court dismissed the individual plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing, as their alleged injuries were not distinct from the corporation's, and dismissed fourteen of the counts for failure to state a claim, including application of the economic loss doctrine to bar the negligence claim and partial time bars on contract recovery. The decision rested on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standards, corporate standing principles, and Wisconsin substantive law. Remaining claims were allowed to proceed to scheduling.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Heil Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., the plaintiff sought reimbursement from its insurers for defense costs incurred in an underlying lawsuit brought by Snyder Industries alleging patent infringement along with abuse of process and related claims. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the insurers had no duty to defend. The core reasoning was that the policies provided no coverage for bodily injury, property damage, personal injury (including malicious prosecution), or advertising injury, as the amended complaint lacked allegations triggering those provisions and patent infringement claims did not have the required causal link to the insured's advertising activities under Wisconsin law.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved the estate and mother of James Phillips suing the City of Milwaukee, its police chief, and several officers after Phillips died the day following an incident in which officers, responding to a hotel's request to remove him from his room, restrained the noncommunicative man by handcuffing him face-down on the ground; he then stopped breathing. The plaintiff brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, inadequate training and supervision by the city and chief, and related state-law claims for wrongful death and battery. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case in full. It held that the individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity, the plaintiff had not identified a municipal policy or custom to support liability against the city or chief, and the federal claims' dismissal required dismissal of the pendent state claims.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved a former Milwaukee Brewers pitcher who sued his orthopedic surgeons for negligently misdiagnosing and mistreating a shoulder injury sustained while pitching, resulting in ongoing pain and disability. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to present expert testimony establishing that the defendants' care fell below the applicable standard of care under Wisconsin law, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because the injury was not shown to be within the defendants' exclusive control. Additionally, the plaintiff's attempt to introduce new expert evidence was properly denied, leaving no genuine issues of material fact for trial.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

In this case, prisoner Thomas H. Richmond filed a pro se § 1983 civil rights complaint alleging that prison officials violated his due process rights by denying him access to sex offender treatment and preventing his reclassification because he refused to admit guilt to a dismissed charge noted in his presentence report, and because the evaluating official was allegedly unlicensed. The court denied the plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for appointment of counsel, and dismissed the action. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to allege the deprivation of any protected liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment, as prisoners have no constitutional right to rehabilitation programs and any state-created interests in such programs do not impose atypical hardships under Sandin v. Conner; prison officials' actions were reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, rendering the complaint legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

civil rightscriminal law

The case involved the Estate of Timothy Frank suing Dodge County and several correctional officers after Frank committed suicide in his jail cell shortly after his 1992 arrest for burglary and marijuana possession. The plaintiff alleged negligent supervision and violations of Frank's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights based on deliberate indifference to his medical and custodial needs, including failure to properly assess suicide risk or train staff. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case in full. It held that the individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity because no facts showed they knowingly disregarded a substantial suicide risk, and without an underlying constitutional violation by the officers, the county could not be held liable under Monell for any policies or customs.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In Valona v. United States, the petitioner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his 1986 conviction for attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, arguing that the conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because it followed a 1983 civil forfeiture of currency, jewels, and coins connected to the offense; he also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to raise the issue earlier. The court dismissed the motion in full. It held that the claims were barred by procedural default because they were not raised on direct appeal and the petitioner failed to show cause and prejudice, and that the claims lacked merit because forfeiture of drug proceeds under 21 U.S.C. § 881 is a remedial sanction rather than punishment, so it does not implicate double jeopardy when followed by a criminal prosecution for the same conduct.

criminal lawprocedure

In Mann v. Hanil Bank, court-appointed receivers sought to avoid numerous transfers of funds made by Longreen Toys, Inc. to several Korean banks, claiming the transfers were fraudulent under Wisconsin statutes §§ 242.04(1)(b) and 242.05 in order to collect on an $8 million judgment against related entities. The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on Count I of the complaint. The court denied the motion, finding genuine factual disputes over whether Longreen received reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfers and whether it was insolvent or believed it would incur debts beyond its ability to pay. Because these unresolved issues prevented establishing essential elements of the fraudulent transfer claims, summary judgment was inappropriate.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a discovery dispute arising from underlying ERISA, labor law, and common law claims in the Southern District of Ohio concerning a pension and health fund's authority to terminate participation by certain Schneider companies due to actuarial issues. Non-party affiliates of the plaintiffs, served with subpoenas duces tecum in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, moved to quash them as overly broad, burdensome, and seeking privileged or confidential materials. The court transferred the motion to quash to Magistrate Judge Kemp in Ohio under its discretionary authority pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 and 26, citing the need for judicial economy, uniformity, and the Ohio court's greater familiarity with the factual and legal context of the litigation, including related motions to compel.

procedurelabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved the EEOC's effort to enforce an administrative subpoena against the Milwaukee Police Department seeking documents and information related to charges of race discrimination and retaliation filed by more than thirty African-American officers and applicants. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's order enforcing most of the subpoena's subsections after finding that the requests were within the EEOC's authority, reasonably relevant to the investigation, and not unduly broad or burdensome, while noting the City's failure to exhaust administrative remedies by first petitioning to modify the subpoena. The court denied enforcement of one vague subsection (C15) and modified the confidentiality terms to allow the City three business days to seek a protective order before any release of documents. The decision was based on de novo review of the objected-to portions and agreement with the magistrate's analysis of relevance and scope under Title VII.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved Dr. John Puchner's federal habeas corpus petition challenging his 60-day jail sentence for civil contempt in a Wisconsin state court proceeding arising from a divorce and child custody dispute, where he was found to have willfully failed to pay court-ordered child support and other fees. The federal district court granted the petition after determining that Puchner had not received a meaningful hearing to demonstrate that his inability to satisfy the purge conditions (such as making payments) was not willful or intentional. The core reasoning rested on due process requirements under Wisconsin precedent, which obligates trial courts to provide contemnors an opportunity to explain noncompliance before recommitment to jail, and the court found that Puchner's requests for such a hearing had not been properly addressed. As a result, the court ordered a hearing before a state circuit judge to resolve the issue, with any further incarceration depending on its outcome.

family lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution who filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights through cruel and unusual punishment. The alleged violations arose from conditions during security-related remodeling of segregation cells, including welding, grinding, and painting activities that produced noise and potential fumes, as well as temporary limits on outdoor exercise and shower frequency. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, finding no genuine issues of material fact. It reasoned that the plaintiff provided no evidence of objectively serious harm from the conditions or of deliberate indifference by officials, who had used ventilation, ear protection, buffer cells, and other measures to address safety and comfort during necessary construction.

civil rightscriminal law

This case involves cross-motions for summary judgment in a commercial dispute arising from the larger Paliafito litigation over the Grip Ball game. Paliafito America, Inc. asserted claims against the Forman defendants for breaching fiduciary duties owed to Paliafito and for tortiously interfering with Paliafito's contractual and prospective relations with Toys R Us, while the Forman defendants counterclaimed for unpaid commissions. The court granted Paliafito partial summary judgment on the breach of fiduciary duty claims, partial summary judgment on the tortious interference claims, and summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim for commissions; it denied the Forman defendants' motion for summary judgment. The reasoning rested on undisputed facts establishing agency relationships, the defendants' actions in contacting retailers and providing information that undermined Paliafito's position, and the absence of evidence supporting the counterclaim or defenses.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved plaintiff Ronald Howard, a Navistar employee who developed lateral epicondylitis in his right elbow in 1990 and later in his left elbow, leading to various work restrictions on lifting, repetitive arm use, and hours. Howard sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming Navistar failed to accommodate his condition and retaliated against him after he asserted his rights, including by filing grievances. The court granted Navistar's motion for summary judgment and dismissed both counts. It reasoned that Howard was not disabled under the ADA because his impairment did not substantially limit a major life activity such as working and he was not regarded as disabled by his employer, with Navistar having provided accommodations consistent with medical evaluations. The court also found no evidence of retaliation tied to Howard's ADA assertions.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case stemmed from a commercial dispute over U.S. distribution rights for the Grip Ball game, which produced an $8 million default judgment against certain Korean defendants and related efforts to attach assets. Plaintiffs then sued several Korean banks, alleging the banks participated in financing and fund transfers that hindered collection on the judgment. The court addressed motions to dismiss under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, granting dismissal of Counts II and III but denying it as to Count I. It reasoned that the banks engaged in commercial activity with a direct effect in the United States, removing sovereign immunity for at least one claim, while other claims failed on jurisdictional or venue grounds.

business & regulatoryprocedure