Barbara Brandriff Crabb

The case concerned whether funds in an Inherited Individual Retirement Account qualify for exemption from a bankruptcy estate under the federal provision of 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(C). The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's denial of the exemption claimed by the debtors. The court reasoned that the Inherited IRA satisfied both requirements for exemption because the funds remained retirement funds held in an account exempt from taxation under IRC § 408, with principal and earnings tax-deferred until distributed, and the statute's language supported including such accounts. The decision noted that any ambiguity in the exemption statute should be resolved in favor of the debtor.

propertyprocedure

This case involved the United States filing a collateral attack in federal court against a Wisconsin state rehabilitation court, seeking to enjoin enforcement of orders in an Ambac Assurance Corporation insurance rehabilitation proceeding that restricted IRS tax collection actions. The court decided to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without addressing the request for a preliminary injunction. The core reasoning was that principles of comity and federalism under Burford abstention, along with the McCarran-Ferguson Act, barred federal jurisdiction, as the United States could challenge the orders in the state proceeding or on appeal, consistent with the court's prior remand of a related removal action.

federal powerproceduretaxesbusiness & regulatory

This ERISA case involved plaintiff Deborah Kenseth, who underwent surgery to remove gastric bands after receiving assurances of coverage from defendant Dean Health Plan's customer service, only to have the claim denied under an obesity-related exclusion. On remand from the Seventh Circuit, which had revived her breach of fiduciary duty claim, the district court addressed whether she sought authorized equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, concluding that her requests for monetary relief were compensatory damages unavailable under the statute, her demands for policy changes were not justiciable because she was no longer a plan participant, and she was not entitled to attorney fees under § 1132(g)(1) due to lack of success on the claim and the defendant's substantially justified position.

healthcarelabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved the Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance's petition in state court to rehabilitate a segregated account of Ambac Assurance Corporation under Wisconsin insurance statutes, after which the United States removed the matter to federal court and moved to dissolve a state-court injunction affecting its potential tax claims. The district court granted the Commissioner's motion to remand the proceeding to the Circuit Court for Dane County. It held that removal was improper because the McCarran-Ferguson Act leaves regulation of the insurance business to the states and thereby preempts federal removal jurisdiction here. The court further concluded that abstention was required under the principles of Burford v. Sun Oil Co. to respect comity and federalism, given the comprehensive state regulatory scheme for insurance-company rehabilitations and the state court's superior familiarity with the issues. Because removal was improper, the court lacked jurisdiction to address the United States' motion to dissolve the injunction.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case is a proposed class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in which Wilder Chiropractic alleged that Pizza Hut sent unsolicited fax advertisements to it and over 3,000 others. Defendant made a Rule 68 offer of judgment paying the maximum on plaintiff's individual claim plus costs, fees, and an injunction, which plaintiff rejected. Plaintiff moved to strike the offer or certify the class, while defendant moved to dismiss on mootness grounds. The court held that the case is not moot if plaintiff can show class certification is appropriate under Rule 23, denied the motion to strike, and stayed the other motions pending supplemental briefing on ascertainability, scope of the class, consent issues, and adequacy of counsel.

procedure

This case concerned whether utility companies could claim administrative priority status under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(9) for electricity supplied to a debtor in the 20 days before its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. The debtor, GFI Wisconsin, Inc., objected that electricity does not qualify as a "good" under the statute, which incorporates the Uniform Commercial Code definition requiring movability and identifiability at the time of sale, and that any bundled services should be excluded. The bankruptcy court overruled the objection, and the district court affirmed, holding that electricity satisfies the definition of goods because it is identifiable and moving when metered at the customer's premises. The court also found that arguments about predominant purpose tests or unbundling services were waived because they were not raised in the initial briefing and the parties had stipulated to the claim amounts.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns claims by EMD Crop Bioscience Inc. and EMD Crop Bioscience Canada Inc. against Becker Underwood Inc. for infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,979,664, related to a composition for accelerating seed germination and plant growth, along with a false marking claim under 35 U.S.C. § 292. The court granted the motion to dismiss EMD Crop Bioscience Inc.'s infringement claim for lack of standing, as it was neither a co-owner nor an exclusive licensee of the patent. It denied the motion to dismiss EMD Crop Bioscience Canada Inc.'s infringement claim but required that plaintiff to join co-owner McGill University as a necessary party within 30 days, because the co-owner lacked all substantial rights in the patent. The court denied the motion to dismiss the false marking claim, finding that both plaintiffs had standing and met the pleading requirements under Rule 9.

propertyprocedure

This case concerns plaintiff Silicon Graphics' motion to disqualify the Robins Kaplan law firm from representing defendants in an ongoing patent infringement suit over graphics processing technology, because a lawyer who had worked on the case for plaintiff from 2006-2007 had since joined the firm. The court denied the motion, holding that the firm could continue representation. It reasoned that, under Seventh Circuit precedent such as Cromley v. Board of Education, screening mechanisms adequately address confidentiality concerns even when the lawyer performed substantial work for the former client, and the firm had implemented sufficient protocols here with no appreciable risk of information sharing.

procedure

This case involved a dispute over failed negotiations for plaintiffs Peter Denil and Gerald Nardella to acquire a minority ownership stake in the deBoer trucking companies, become managers, and later sell the businesses, with related employment agreements. Plaintiffs sued the corporate defendants and Ronald DeBoer for breaching the stock purchase agreements, violating the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breaching employment agreements, and intentional interference with contract. Defendants counterclaimed for similar breaches by the plaintiffs. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court ruled that undisputed facts showed neither side breached the agreements or acted in bad faith, as the parties negotiated in good faith but reached an impasse over key terms such as the management incentive distribution and valuation method; accordingly, it granted defendants summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims and plaintiffs summary judgment on the counterclaims, while denying the expert witness motion as moot.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a dispute over the dissolution of Teel Global Resources Tech, LLC, a company jointly owned by plaintiff Colin Felton (30%) and defendant Teel Plastics (70%), with defendant Jay Smith as manager. After plaintiff left the company in 2004 but retained his interest, defendants dissolved it in 2008 based on an accounting showing over $5 million in debt, leading plaintiff to sue for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, violations of Wis. Stat. Ch. 183, and an accounting under the operating agreement. The court had previously dismissed the fiduciary duty claim and granted summary judgment to defendants on the statutory and contract claims due to plaintiff's failure to develop arguments or present supporting evidence. On the accounting claim, the court found that plaintiff did not show the 2007 accounting was inaccurate or that the company had assets or profits in 2008 requiring further distribution, and it denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration while entering judgment for defendants.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Wisconsin Bell sued members of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission and competitors, claiming the commission violated a voluntary merger commitment made by AT&T to the FCC by requiring the company to adopt a modified version of a Kentucky interconnection agreement that complied with Wisconsin and federal law. The dispute arose after a competitor sought to "port" the Kentucky agreement to Wisconsin under Merger Commitment 7.1, and the commission resolved disagreements over terms like the definition of "Wireless Local Traffic." The court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, holding that the merger commitment was not a federal "law" creating federal question jurisdiction. Even assuming jurisdiction, the court found no private right of action and determined the commitment did not prohibit the commission's modifications, as it expressly preserved state authority and allowed adjustments for state-specific legal compliance.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In this patent infringement case, Riddell sued Schutt for allegedly infringing three patents on design features in football helmets, including notches in the shell, jaw pads with specific compression properties, and jaw flaps, while Schutt asserted counterclaims for non-infringement, invalidity, and inequitable conduct. The court granted Schutt's motion for summary judgment on the infringement claims involving notches and the jaw pad compression requirement, finding Riddell had not shown the accused products met those limitations literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. It denied summary judgment on the remaining infringement claims and Schutt's invalidity counterclaims related to jaw flaps, jaw pads, and connectable face guards. The court also denied as moot a motion to strike expert testimony tied to the dismissed claims and clarified the construction of the term "jaw flap" based on the patent specifications without requiring coverage of the entire forward mandible. The decisions rested on undisputed facts from the record, claim language, and the absence of admissible evidence establishing infringement for the granted claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case between two football helmet manufacturers, Riddell sued Schutt for patent infringement and false advertising under the Lanham Act related to helmet marketing claims, while Schutt counterclaimed with similar false advertising and deceptive trade practices allegations under federal and Wisconsin law, focusing on statements about a concussion study favoring Riddell's Revolution helmet. The court granted Riddell's motion for partial summary judgment on Schutt's counterclaims for false advertising and deceptive trade practices. It reasoned that Schutt failed to identify any literally false statements in Riddell's ads or evidence of pecuniary harm or loss caused by them, that the claims were at most misleading rather than literally false, and that Wisconsin's deceptive practices statute does not provide a cause of action for misrepresentations made to third parties. The court denied as unnecessary Riddell's motion to strike related expert testimony.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff The Dry Dock, LLC suing defendants Godfrey Marine and Lippert Components for alleged breaches of dealership agreements and contracts after purchasing defective boats and trailers, seeking damages for repairs, interest, and lost sales. The court addressed summary judgment motions after noting the plaintiff's failure to follow required procedures for opposing facts and submitting evidence, which limited consideration of its arguments. It granted summary judgment to both defendants on most claims, including those under the Wisconsin Franchise Investment Law and for punitive damages, because no franchise relationship existed and punitive damages are unavailable in contract actions. The court denied summary judgment to Godfrey Marine only on the implied warranty of merchantability claim regarding the boats and trailers but limited any damages to the difference in value under Wis. Stat. § 402.714(2), excluding consequential damages. Lippert received full summary judgment, and the case proceeds to trial solely on the remaining warranty claim and a related cross-claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This ERISA class action concerned whether Alliant Energy's cash balance pension plan underpaid departing employees' lump-sum distributions between 1998 and 2006 by using the 30-year Treasury rate to project future interest credits instead of the plan's promised rate (the greater of 4% or 75% of the trust fund's actual earnings). The court granted plaintiffs summary judgment on their claim that the plan violated ERISA by understating the value of those credits, while denying the defendant's cross-motion and rejecting its statute-of-limitations defense. It reasoned that ERISA required a "whipsaw" calculation projecting the account forward to normal retirement age using the plan's crediting rate before discounting to present value, and that the Treasury rate did not adequately reflect the variable rate the plan had promised. The court also ruled on related expert motions and held that a preretirement mortality discount applied to damages calculations because the plan documents required it.

labor & employment

In this patent infringement lawsuit, Semiconductor Energy Laboratory sued Samsung and related companies, alleging that their liquid crystal display products infringed four patents on thin-film transistor technology. The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment regarding infringement of the '463 patent and invalidity defenses based on anticipation and obviousness for that patent. The court denied Samsung's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, granted Semiconductor's motion on several specific infringement elements, and denied it on others due to remaining factual disputes for the jury. On invalidity, the court granted Semiconductor's motion as to one prior art reference but denied the motions as to others, again citing material factual disputes that precluded summary judgment. Issues involving the other three patents and additional defenses were reserved for a separate order.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned whether the federal statute establishing a National Day of Prayer, 36 U.S.C. § 119, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court ruled that the statute is unconstitutional, granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, declared the law invalid, and enjoined its enforcement by the President. The reasoning centered on the statute's sole purpose of encouraging citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise without a secular function in this context, which amounts to government endorsement rather than mere acknowledgment of religion. The court distinguished the law from permissible forms of ceremonial deism upheld in other cases, noting that context matters and the government may not associate religious beliefs with the state or identify nonadherents as outsiders.

religious libertycivil rights

In this proposed class and collective action, plaintiffs, former installation technicians for DirectSat USA, alleged that the company violated the FLSA and wage laws of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania by failing to compensate them for required tasks like travel, vehicle maintenance, and other off-the-clock work. The defendants moved to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to dismiss the state law claims as preempted or incompatible with the FLSA, and for costs and fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(d) related to prior dismissed actions in other states. The court denied the transfer motion, finding the Eastern District of Pennsylvania not clearly more convenient, and denied the motion to dismiss, concluding the state law claims were adequately pleaded and not preempted. However, the court granted costs for the prior Minnesota and Pennsylvania actions, determining that the refiling was motivated by tactical advantage, while denying attorney fees absent statutory authorization or bad faith.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this contract dispute, Wisconsin-based plaintiff Kuryakyn Holdings sued California-based defendant Just in Time Distribution for breach of their 1998 amended agreement on motorcycle accessory designs, unjust enrichment from alleged royalty overpayments exceeding $300,000, and declaratory relief that no royalties were owed on plaintiff's redesigned products. Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue, contending the Wisconsin action was an anticipatory filing that should yield to its later-filed duplicative suit in California. The court denied the motion, holding that the actions were not duplicative because the claims and available relief were not identical and that dismissal would not promote judicial economy, while noting defendant could seek transfer and consolidation instead.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a prisoner, Richard Hoeft, suing a prison captain, Michael Kasten, under the Eighth Amendment for alleged deliberate indifference to his health by refusing to transfer him from the noisier B side of a segregation unit at Stanley Correctional Institution, where he claimed the noise caused headaches and ear ringing. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that no reasonable jury could find an Eighth Amendment violation. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to produce admissible evidence showing the noise exceeded contemporary standards of decency or posed a serious risk of harm, relying instead on disputed allegations and grievances; the conditions were at most uncomfortable but not inhumane, and precedent like Antonelli did not apply because it involved allegations rather than evidence at summary judgment.

civil rightscriminal law