This case involved a Title VII employment discrimination lawsuit brought by Traci Radmanovich against Combined Insurance Company of America on behalf of herself and a putative class of female employees, alleging bias in hiring, promotions, commissions, and a hostile work environment. After the court denied class certification, Radmanovich moved for court-approved notice to potential class members under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and for a stay of the statute of limitations. The court granted the motion for notice under Rule 23(e), reasoning that some potential class members had become aware of the suit through declarations or media and might have relied on it to protect their claims, consistent with Seventh Circuit precedent in Culver v. City of Milwaukee. However, the court denied the request to stay or toll the limitations period, holding that any tolling should be evaluated individually on a case-by-case basis if and when absent class members file separate suits.
The case involved plaintiff CC Industries suing ReliaStar Life Insurance and CIGNA Healthcare of Illinois in Illinois state court for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation related to administration of an employee benefits plan and denial of excess insurance claims. Defendants removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, arguing that the non-diverse defendant CHC had been fraudulently joined. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that CHC was not fraudulently joined because factual disputes existed over whether CHC supplied inaccurate information that could support a negligent misrepresentation claim, and all doubts and facts must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor. Because CHC remained a proper party, complete diversity was lacking and the federal court had no subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court therefore remanded the action to the Circuit Court of Cook County and struck the pending motion to dismiss as moot.
In this case, Pierre Willhite, convicted by an Illinois jury of first-degree murder and home invasion, petitioned for a federal writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He alleged that testimony from a Chicago police detective about statements from non-testifying witnesses violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights. The court denied the petition, finding that Willhite had procedurally defaulted the claim because the state appellate court had rejected it on an independent and adequate state ground of waiver. The court further held that the detective's testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause and that any error would have been harmless given other evidence supporting the verdict.
This case involves a dispute between aircraft leasing companies (plaintiffs Interlease II, Interlease III, and Mimi) and Vanguard Airlines, along with Pegasus Aviation and its president Richard Wiley, over Vanguard's failure to pay on leases and related promissory notes after financial difficulties led to deferral agreements. Plaintiffs alleged that Pegasus and Wiley, through investments and meetings including one in Illinois, gained influence over Vanguard and induced it to breach those agreements, asserting claims including tortious interference and fraudulent scheme. Defendants Pegasus and Wiley moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to plead fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b). The court denied all motions, finding personal jurisdiction based on the commission of a tortious act in Illinois, venue proper in the district, and the fraud allegations sufficient to notify defendants of their alleged roles.
This case involved Anton Hodel, an Austrian native and U.S. permanent resident since 1956, who was convicted in 1995 of conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. After a 1997 removal order became final, Hodel was detained in 2003 under INA § 241 while his motion to reopen (based on INS v. St. Cyr) was pending before the BIA, and he filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claiming the detention violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights. The court first determined it had subject matter jurisdiction because § 1252(g) did not bar review of detention claims during a pending administrative process and exhaustion was not required for the constitutional challenge. On the merits, the court denied the petition, holding that § 241 mandates detention for aggravated felons during the 90-day removal period and that the six-month presumptively reasonable period established in Zadvydas v. Davis had not expired.
This case arose after the court granted summary judgment to defendant UOP LLC in an employment dispute brought by plaintiff Shirley Riley, leaving the defendant as the prevailing party. The defendant then submitted a bill of costs seeking recovery for photocopying, court reporting and transcripts, witness fees, and exemplification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The court reviewed each category for reasonableness, reducing the photocopying rate to the prevailing outside-shop rate of $0.10 per page, disallowing costs for condensed transcripts and certain shipping fees, and applying Judicial Conference rates to deposition transcripts. It ultimately awarded the defendant $3,369.63 in total costs while denying the remainder of the requested amounts.
