District Court, N.D. Illinois — appointed by William Jefferson Clinton
CHICAGO BEARS FOOTBALL CLUB, INC. v. Haynes
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2011-09-13 · cited 3×
The case involved the Chicago Bears and the NFL Management Council seeking to confirm an arbitration award under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act against players Michael Haynes, Joe Odom, and Cameron Worrell, along with the NFL Players Association. The award stemmed from grievances claiming the players violated their contracts and the CBA by filing workers' compensation claims in California rather than Illinois. The district court confirmed the award in full and denied the defendants' motion to vacate it. The court applied the narrow standard of review for arbitration awards under the LMRA, finding that the arbitrator's decision drew its essence from the agreements' choice-of-law and choice-of-forum provisions and that the defendants' arguments regarding California law, federal labor policy, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause did not overcome the presumption favoring enforcement.
labor & employmentprocedurefederal power
US Fidelity & Guar. v. SHORENSTEIN REALTY SERVS.
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2011-08-16
This case involved a dispute over a bill of costs filed by National Union after prevailing in underlying insurance coverage litigation against AMICO and USF&G. The court held that National Union was the prevailing party entitled to costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920, even though it did not prevail on every issue. The court awarded limited fees for service of process capped at marshal rates, allowable court reporter fees for transcripts, and reduced copying costs that were necessary for the case, while denying attorney travel expenses and charges for unnecessary extras like binding or color copies. In total, the court taxed $13,759.65 jointly and severally against AMICO and USF&G, plus an additional $15.80 solely against USF&G.
procedure
Latex Allergen Reduction, LLC v. Dynarex Corp.
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2011-04-21
This case involves a patent infringement suit brought by Latex Allergen Reduction, LLC against Dynarex Corporation over U.S. Patent 5,777,004, which describes a method for neutralizing protein allergens in natural rubber latex using protease and peptidase enzymes to break them down into non-allergenic fragments. The parties disputed the meaning of several claim terms, prompting the court to conduct a Markman claim construction analysis. The court explained that claim terms receive their ordinary meaning to a person of skill in the art, with primary reliance on the claim language, specification, and prosecution history as intrinsic evidence. It began by addressing the term 'non-allergenic to humans' in Claim 1, rejecting the plaintiff's narrow reading that only some degraded allergens need be non-allergenic and instead tying the requirement to the overall degradation process described in the patent. Additional disputes concerned whether the patent allows a single enzyme to provide both protease and peptidase activity or requires separate enzymes.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Merit Management Group v. Ponca Tribe of Indians
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2011-04-19
In this case, Merit Management Group sued the Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma in federal court for breach of a loan agreement, invoking diversity jurisdiction and obtaining a default judgment after the Tribe failed to respond. The Tribe later moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) to vacate the judgment, arguing that it was void because Indian tribes possess sovereign immunity from suit, are not citizens of any state for diversity purposes, and had not clearly waived immunity for proceedings outside Oklahoma. The court examined the exclusivity agreement's limited waiver provision, which defined non-tribal courts as those sitting in Oklahoma, and found that it did not extend to the Illinois federal court where the suit was filed. The court granted the motion, holding that subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking and that challenges to jurisdiction may be raised at any time, resulting in dismissal of the case.
federal powerprocedure
Kitchen v. Burge
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2011-04-19 · cited 12×
The case involves plaintiff Ronald Kitchen, who was arrested in 1988 for the Rodriguez/Sepulveda murders, allegedly tortured by Chicago police officers including Jon Burge into signing a false confession, convicted, and sentenced to death; he spent 21 years in prison before suing Burge, other officers, municipal officials, ASAs, Richard Daley, the City, and Cook County, alleging a conspiracy to cover up systemic torture of African-American suspects and suppress exculpatory evidence. The court granted the motions to dismiss filed by Daley and the ASA defendants in full, while granting in part and denying in part the motions of the officer defendants and municipal defendants. Core reasoning centered on absolute prosecutorial immunity protecting Daley and the ASAs from liability for actions and alleged conspiracies tied to their prosecutorial roles, with partial dismissals for other defendants based on immunity doctrines, pleading standards, and the scope of conspiracy claims, while allowing certain claims to proceed.
criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure
Washington v. Amatore
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2011-04-13 · cited 4×
This case arose from a 2009 car collision involving plaintiff Maurice Washington and Chicago police officer Chris Amatore, after which Amatore arrested Washington for cannabis possession based on alleged marijuana found in his vehicle; the charges were later dropped, leading Washington to sue Amatore and the City of Chicago under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, failure to provide medical care, and conspiracy, plus a state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court denied summary judgment on the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims because disputed facts existed regarding whether probable cause supported the arrest, including Washington's denial of possessing marijuana and his account of the collision. It also denied summary judgment on the IIED claim, finding that planting evidence could constitute extreme and outrageous conduct if proven. However, the court granted summary judgment on the medical care and conspiracy claims due to insufficient evidence that Amatore knew of any injury or agreed with others to violate Washington's rights.
civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability