District Court, N.D. Illinois — appointed by William Jefferson Clinton
Northfield Insurance v. City of Waukegan
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2010-12-27 · cited 2×
In this case, insurance companies Northfield and St. Paul sought a declaratory judgment that they had no duty to defend or indemnify the City of Waukegan and its police officers in a § 1983 lawsuit brought by Bennie Starks, who alleged wrongful conviction and imprisonment based on misconduct in a 1986 rape investigation and trial. The underlying suit claimed conspiracy, due process violations, and related harms stemming from Starks's arrest, prosecution, and 20-year incarceration, which was later vacated after DNA evidence. The insurers moved for summary judgment on the ground that their policies, effective only from 1991 to 1995, did not cover the relevant events. The court granted the motion, holding that coverage for such § 1983 claims is determined by when the underlying tortious acts occurred—in 1986—rather than when the claims accrued upon Starks's partial exoneration in 2006-2007. This conclusion followed Seventh Circuit precedent linking insurance triggers to the date of the misconduct for purposes of occurrence-based policies.
civil rightsproceduretorts & liability
Elusta v. City of Chicago
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2010-12-13 · cited 7×
The case involved civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Morad Elusta against Chicago police officers for false arrest, excessive force, and related incidents from 2005 and 2006, along with claims by family members regarding a home search; Elusta prevailed at trial on excessive force and intentional infliction of emotional distress, receiving $40,000 in damages. The opinion addressed the current attorneys' petition for fees under § 1988 and the former attorneys' motion to adjudicate a lien. The court granted the fee petition in part, awarding $82,696.50 after calculating a lodestar amount adjusted for market rates, limited success on some claims, and hours reasonably expended, while taxing $5,679.60 in costs to defendants. It denied the lien but awarded the former attorneys $15,000 on a quantum meruit basis for services rendered before withdrawal.
civil rightsprocedure
United States v. West
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2010-10-15
This case involves defendants charged with bribery and related corruption offenses at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan under federal statutes including 18 U.S.C. §§ 201(b) and 371. The defendants sought to introduce evidence of economic coercion or extortion by officials to argue they lacked the corrupt intent required for bribery. The court ruled that economic coercion cannot serve as a defense to bribery or mail fraud charges, as such payments can still reflect corrupt intent even if made under pressure, and the defendants had no legal entitlement to the contracts involved. However, the court allowed for the possibility of a physical duress defense and narrowed the exclusion of related evidence accordingly.
criminal law
Devine v. Kapasi
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2010-06-07 · cited 6×
This case arose after a stock-redemption agreement split ownership of Geus Technology, Inc., with plaintiffs alleging that the defendants used former company passwords to access and delete thousands of files from a server transferred to Devine Solutions' network. Plaintiffs sued under the Stored Communications Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and Illinois law, claiming unauthorized electronic access and data tampering. The court denied dismissal of the Stored Communications Act claims, holding that the password-protected network qualified as a facility providing electronic communication service and that the complaint plausibly alleged unauthorized access. It granted dismissal without prejudice of the CFAA claims for failure to adequately plead at least $5,000 in recoverable loss, while retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims because a federal claim survived.
criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure
Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2010-05-24 · cited 8×
This case is a patent infringement dispute between Abbott Laboratories and Sandoz, Inc. over generic versions of Biaxin XL. The court ruled on numerous motions in limine filed by both parties regarding the admissibility of evidence at trial. It granted some motions to exclude evidence such as certain settlement agreements under Federal Rules of Evidence 402, 403, and 408, while denying others, including one seeking to bar royalty rates from prior settlements because Abbott's damages expert had considered them in his reasonable royalty analysis. The reasoning emphasized policy interests in promoting settlements, the limited probative value of settlement licenses, risks of unfair prejudice and jury confusion, and the need to permit rebuttal of expert testimony under Rule 705 when such agreements were already factored into the expert's calculations.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Levin v. Madigan
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2010-03-10 · cited 20×
The case involves Harvey Levin, a 62-year-old male former Senior Assistant Attorney General, who sued the State of Illinois, the Office of the Attorney General, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and other officials, claiming his termination violated the ADEA, Title VII, and the Equal Protection Clause under §1983 due to age and gender discrimination. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss, denying the defendants' second motion (construed as a motion for reconsideration) and ruling that whether Levin qualified as an "employee" under Title VII and the ADEA is a merits issue rather than a jurisdictional one under Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., so dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) was improper. It granted the motions in part and denied them in part on other grounds, holding that Levin's §1983 equal protection claims were not preempted by the ADEA or Title VII because they asserted independent constitutional rights, and that his complaint sufficiently alleged plausible claims to survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
labor & employmentcivil rights