James Henry Alesia

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.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryhealthcaretorts & liability

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.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rightsfederal power

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.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

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.

immigrationcriminal lawcivil rights

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.

procedurelabor & employmentcivil rights

The case involves aircraft leasing companies that sued Vanguard Airlines and related parties after Vanguard defaulted on lease payments and promissory notes following negotiations in which defendants allegedly made false statements about Vanguard's financial condition, Pegasus investments, and fleet transition plans to induce deferrals. Plaintiffs brought claims for breach of contract against Vanguard plus fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and other tort claims against Seabury Group and individual officers or agents. The court granted the motion to dismiss all claims against the individual defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, applying the fiduciary shield doctrine and finding insufficient minimum contacts with Illinois. It also granted dismissal of the fraud and fraudulent scheme counts under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) for lack of particularity but denied dismissal of the negligent misrepresentation count against Seabury, finding the pleadings adequately alleged a duty and reasonable reliance.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

Shirley Riley, an African-American woman born in 1948, sued UOP LLC alleging race, sex, and age discrimination after her termination from an operator position during a workforce reduction at the McCook facility. The district court granted UOP's motion for summary judgment, denied the parties' motions in limine, and held that Riley failed to present direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination under either the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework or the Troupe standard. The court reasoned that Riley's performance evaluations, disciplinary record, and comparisons to other employees did not support an inference that UOP's stated reasons for her termination were pretextual or that similarly situated non-protected employees were treated more favorably.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Karen Randall, an African-American female, sued her former employer Unitech Systems, Inc. alleging race and sex discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 after her employment as a Market Unit Leader was terminated. The court denied the defendant's motions in limine and granted summary judgment to Unitech on all counts. Randall failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or demonstrate that Unitech's proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for termination—her lack of writing skills, insufficient knowledge of the software marketing industry, and poor attitude—were pretextual. The court concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact and entered judgment for the defendant.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Pierre Willhite after his Illinois state conviction for first-degree murder and home invasion, in which he raised claims of hearsay violations, due process errors in post-conviction review, ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, and improper dismissal of his post-conviction petition without an evidentiary hearing. The respondent moved to dismiss on timeliness grounds under the one-year statute of limitations and because certain claims were not cognizable. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that claims based on the performance of post-conviction counsel were non-cognizable since there is no constitutional right to counsel in collateral proceedings under precedents like Coleman v. Thompson and 28 U.S.C. § 2254(i).

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an Illinois inmate, Brian Jones, who sued multiple prison doctors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging they violated the Eighth Amendment through deliberate indifference to his ongoing hemorrhoid-related pain, bleeding, and complications while he was housed at Joliet and Stateville correctional centers. Jones claimed the defendants refused treatment or persisted with ineffective medications and delayed or inadequate surgeries despite his repeated complaints and grievances. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding no genuine issue of material fact supporting deliberate indifference because the record showed the doctors examined Jones, prescribed medications like suppositories and Metamucil, performed multiple surgeries including a hemorrhoidectomy and abscess excisions, referred him to specialists, and provided other care such as nutritional consultations. The court reasoned that ongoing symptoms alone do not establish a constitutional violation when treatment was provided, even if not fully successful, and rejected claims of outright refusal to treat as unsupported by the evidence.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involves a dispute over an exclusive U.S. distribution agreement for silver polymer wound care products under the ARGLAES trademark, where Medline Industries paid over $1.2 million to Maersk Medical for rights derived from Giltech's technology. Medline sued Maersk (along with Giltech and Tyco) alleging breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and tortious interference after learning that Giltech had licensed competing products to Tyco in the U.S. Maersk moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and tortious interference counts. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, applying English law per the agreement's choice-of-law clause while evaluating the sufficiency of the pleadings, the limitation of liability provision, and whether the claims stated viable causes of action under the alleged facts.

business & regulatoryhealthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a commercial dispute between The Allant Group and Ascendes Corporation (d/b/a MarketTouch) over data processing services Allant provided to MarketTouch's customers. Allant sued for unpaid amounts, prompting MarketTouch to file a counterclaim alleging unjust enrichment after it advanced $160,123.13 to Allant as an accommodation with the understanding it would be repaid if not reimbursed by the end customer FMI. Allant moved to dismiss the counterclaim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that MarketTouch failed to adequately plead the elements of unjust enrichment under Illinois law. The court denied the motion, holding that MarketTouch sufficiently alleged Allant received a benefit to its detriment under circumstances where retention would violate principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, based on the parties' agreement and purchase order terms.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

After the defendant prevailed on summary judgment in a civil action, it filed a bill of costs seeking recovery for photocopying, court reporting and transcription, courier and delivery, document subpoenas, and witness fees. The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920, which permit recovery of specified costs by the prevailing party if the amounts are reasonable and necessary for the case. It disallowed all photocopying charges because the defendant provided no details on pages copied, rates, or necessity; reduced transcription fees to Judicial Conference rates and disallowed expedited rates; allowed subpoena fees for medical and employment records; and lowered the witness fee to the statutory $40 attendance plus actual mileage. The court ultimately awarded $2,833.75 in costs and granted an agreed stay of enforcement pending appeal.

procedure

This case involves defendants' bills of costs after the court granted them summary judgment on plaintiffs' federal claims in Tirapelli v. Advanced Equities, Inc., while dismissing the remaining state-law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendants sought recovery for deposition transcripts, photocopying, and docket fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The court confirmed that defendants qualified as prevailing parties entitled to costs, but reduced the requested amounts to the Judicial Conference rates for original and copy transcripts, disallowed delivery charges as ordinary business expenses, and granted in part the two separate bills of costs accordingly. The clerk was directed to tax $2,000.55 for one group of defendants and $486.65 for the other.

procedure

This case involves Kenneth Hawthorne's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1995 Illinois conviction for aggravated criminal sexual assault and 55-year sentence. Hawthorne raised claims including ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, due process violations from improper evidence and judicial rulings, prosecutorial misconduct, and insufficient evidence of guilt. The court denied the petition, finding that several claims were procedurally defaulted under state law because they were not properly raised on direct appeal or in post-conviction proceedings, and that the remaining claims failed to meet the standards of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) as the state courts' decisions were neither contrary to clearly established federal law nor based on unreasonable factual determinations.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

Kevin’s Towing sued the mayor of North Chicago and the city after the mayor allegedly threatened and intimidated a parking lot owner to terminate the towing company’s contract and forced the release of impounded vehicles without payment. The complaint asserted state-law claims for tortious interference with contract and abuse of governmental power, plus a federal procedural due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deprivation of the towing contract without due process. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing the § 1983 claim with prejudice on the grounds that the mayor’s conduct was random and unauthorized, making a pre-deprivation hearing impracticable, and that adequate post-deprivation state remedies existed. The court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and dismissed them without prejudice. The decision rested on established precedent that a plaintiff is not deprived of property without due process when state remedies can provide relief for unauthorized official acts.

civil rightspropertybusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Lonnie Biggs, a longtime United Airlines employee who suffered a stroke causing permanent paralysis in his right hand, suing the airline for age and disability discrimination under the ADEA and ADA after he was directed to undergo a medical evaluation and placed on sick leave. Biggs alleged that United discriminated against him by questioning his ability to perform the physical duties of a lead ramp serviceman, such as lifting and operating equipment, despite his return to work. The court granted United's motion for summary judgment on all counts, concluding that Biggs failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment or show that the airline's actions based on the medical assessment were pretextual. The decision rested on undisputed facts from the record showing legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the evaluation and leave without evidence linking them to bias.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Alexander v. CIT Technology Financing Services, Inc., plaintiff Deborah Alexander sued her employer for sexual harassment under Title VII, age discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA, and related claims, alleging a hostile work environment created by comments from supervisors Buono and Dillard, as well as her termination after complaining about Dillard's outburst. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all counts, while partially granting and denying the parties' motions in limine. It reasoned that the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile environment, that Alexander failed to show her termination was pretextual or linked to protected activity for the discrimination and retaliation claims, and that isolated age-related remarks did not support a viable claim. The court also noted that some potential claims, such as sex discrimination, were not properly pled in the complaint.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Tirapelli v. Advanced Equities, Inc., plaintiffs Ronald Tirapelli and Michael Webb sued defendants including Advanced Equities for federal and state securities violations and common law fraud, claiming they were induced to invest $250,000 each in Telecom Capital Group based on false representations about the company's plans. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the federal securities count (Count I), dismissed the Illinois securities and fraud counts (II and III) without prejudice on its own motion, and denied as moot the summary judgment motion on those counts. The decision rested on the non-reliance clause in the subscription documents signed by plaintiffs, which stated they relied only on the written materials and not on any oral representations, consistent with precedents enforcing such clauses to defeat fraud claims.

business & regulatory