Brian Barnett Duff

This case involved real estate brokers challenging an Illinois statute (720 ILCS 590/1 § 1(d)) that prohibited soliciting homeowners who had given notice they did not wish to be contacted about listing or selling their homes. The plaintiffs, prosecuted under the law for cold-calling, argued it violated their rights to free speech and equal protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. After multiple appeals and a remand from the Supreme Court for consideration under City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, the district court held a bench trial and ruled the statute unconstitutional. The court found that the law did not directly advance the state's interests in protecting residential privacy or preventing fraud and overreaching, was not narrowly tailored under the Central Hudson test for commercial speech restrictions, and lacked a compelling justification when compared to statutes upheld in cases like Rowan and Desnick that targeted uniquely vulnerable audiences.

free speechcivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a motion by counsel for the Barnett plaintiff class in a civil action against the City of Chicago to require the presiding judge to recuse himself under the federal recusal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), on grounds that prior adverse rulings and courtroom comments created an appearance of partiality. The court denied the motion. The decision rests on the Supreme Court's holding in Liteky v. United States that opinions or rulings formed during judicial proceedings do not support recusal unless they display deep-seated favoritism or antagonism making fair judgment impossible, and that any extrajudicial source of bias must be shown. The judge concluded that the challenged actions arose solely from the conduct of counsel during trial and did not meet this high threshold.

procedurecivil rights

The case involved a Colombian bank that issued letters of credit to finance the purchase of buses from Navistar; Navistar presented documents describing the buses as new 1993 models, the bank paid based on those documents, and Colombian authorities later seized the buses because they were 1990 models prohibited under local import law. The bank sued Navistar on seven counts including breach of presentment warranty under UCC Section 5-111, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of implied warranties, breach of good faith, and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The court granted Navistar's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss all seven counts, finding that the UCC warranty claim did not cover the alleged misstatements, fraud and misrepresentation claims lacked particularity or duty, no direct contract existed between the parties, implied warranties did not apply, and the bank lacked standing under the Consumer Fraud Act because the conduct did not implicate consumer protection concerns or market-wide practices; the bank was granted leave to amend the fraud, contract, and good-faith counts.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Allan Stevo suing his employer CSX Transportation in state court, alleging that the company violated the ADA by restricting his access to job information after a work-related back injury and that it retaliated against him for filing a prior FELA claim. The defendant removed the action to federal court on grounds of diversity of citizenship and federal question jurisdiction. The plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that concurrent state-court jurisdiction over ADA claims barred removal and that the Colorado River abstention doctrine required the federal court to defer due to parallel state litigation. The court denied the motion to remand, ruling that concurrent jurisdiction does not preclude removal and that the two actions were not sufficiently similar to justify abstention.

procedurecivil rightslabor & employment

The case involved an appeal by Insure One Independent Insurance Agency from a bankruptcy court judgment finding it liable after firing employee Christopher Koestner. Koestner had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in July 1993 while subject to wage garnishment proceedings; Insure One continued the garnishments despite notice of the filing and then terminated Koestner shortly after he moved to enjoin the deductions. The bankruptcy court ruled that the discharge was retaliatory under 11 U.S.C. § 525(b) and Illinois common law, and that Insure One willfully violated the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362, awarding lost wages and attorney fees. The district court reviewed the factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, affirmed the liability determinations based on the plain language of the bankruptcy court's opinion, and upheld the damages award.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

In this case, Nobelpharma AB sued Implant Innovations, Inc. for patent infringement related to dental implants with a micropitted surface, and Implant Innovations counterclaimed for antitrust violations. The court granted judgment as a matter of law to Implant Innovations on the patent claim, finding the patent invalid for failure to disclose the best mode of making the invention as required, based on inventor testimony that secret manufacturing details were not included in the patent specification. A jury found for Implant Innovations on the antitrust counterclaim. The court then denied Nobelpharma's post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, upholding the prior rulings on both claims after reviewing the evidence and applicable standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case arose after the Resolution Trust Corporation, as receiver for the failed Clyde Federal Savings and Loan, sued the institution's former directors and officers alleging losses exceeding $17 million from an unauthorized options trading program, an out-of-state condominium construction loan, and a pool of out-of-state mortgages. The complaint asserted four counts: negligence, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract. The court dismissed the negligence, fiduciary-duty, and contract claims with prejudice, ruling that the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act preempts those theories and imposes a gross-negligence standard for officer and director liability. The court denied dismissal of the gross-negligence count, holding that the pleaded facts, taken as true, sufficiently alleged both but-for and proximate causation between the defendants' conduct and Clyde's losses.

business & regulatoryfederal powertorts & liability

The case involved TV Land, L.P. and TV Land, Inc., operators of retail stores selling television-themed merchandise, suing Viacom International, Inc. and Viacom Networks, Inc. for trademark infringement and related claims under federal and state law after Viacom planned to launch a cable network called "TV Land" featuring classic television shows. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining Viacom from using the "TV Land" mark in its networking or retailing operations. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs had a protectable registered servicemark since 1993, there was a likelihood of success on the merits due to potential consumer confusion, the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm to their reputation and goodwill without an injunction, the balance of harms favored the plaintiffs, and protecting the trademark served the public interest.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Jachimko, the defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained from a June 1992 warrantless search of his apartment by DEA agents, who entered after a confidential informant already inside alerted them. The court granted the motion to suppress, ruling the search illegal under the Fourth Amendment. Under the consent-once-removed doctrine from circuit precedent, the informant's entry could authorize later officers to search only if the government showed by a preponderance of the evidence that the informant had established probable cause beforehand, but the court found the informant—a convicted felon, drug user, and perjurer—lacked sufficient corroboration for his account of events inside the apartment. The absence of reliable supporting evidence meant consent did not extend to the agents, and no other exception to the warrant requirement applied.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a former employee and minority shareholder of CDW Computer Centers who alleged federal securities law violations arising from negotiations and a 1990 buyout agreement for his shares following his termination. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the federal securities claim, holding that it was barred by the statute of limitations because the plaintiff had sufficient information to bring suit more than three years before filing the complaint. The court further found that the facts pleaded did not support equitable tolling or equitable estoppel to extend the limitations period. As a result, the pendent state claims were dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction, though the plaintiff was granted leave to amend if he could allege facts showing the suit was timely.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute between a school district and the parents of a student with learning disabilities over whether the district's proposed Individualized Education Program (IEP) for fifth grade satisfied the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by reducing direct special education reading instruction in favor of consultative services and regular classroom placement. The court granted summary judgment to the school district, holding that the November 1992 IEP was appropriate under the Act. The reasoning centered on the Supreme Court's standard in Board of Education v. Rowley that an IEP need only be reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit, which was met here since the student was performing at grade level in reading, achieving high marks in classes, and would continue receiving direct services in other areas along with monitoring and consultation.

civil rights

This case involved a securities fraud complaint filed by plaintiff Katz against Household International after a drop in the company's stock price, which was dismissed twice for failing to state a claim. The district court initially awarded Household over $54,000 in attorneys' fees as Rule 11 sanctions, finding the complaints lacked a reasonable pre-filing inquiry. On remand from the Seventh Circuit, which had vacated the award for overlooking an alternative theory in the complaint, the court granted the defendant's motion for clarification. It reasoned that the primary theory was sanctionable due to inadequate pleading under Rule 9(b) and that the complaint as a whole warranted the full fee award previously calculated.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a social security appeal in which Terrian Scott challenged the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of disability insurance benefits after a workplace hand injury caused ongoing pain and limited her work capacity. The district court granted Scott's motion for summary judgment, agreeing that the ALJ had improperly admitted an unsigned consultative medical report, failed to adequately consider favorable reports from her treating physician and the Secretary's medical advisor, and substituted his own medical judgment for that of the physicians. The court remanded the matter to the ALJ with instructions to develop evidence on whether her pain symptoms were supported by objective medical findings using acceptable diagnostic techniques and, if so, to evaluate the intensity and severity of the pain and its impact on her residual functional capacity.

healthcareprocedure

The case involved a dispute between former law partners Barry Sufrin and Gerald Hosier over the division of contingent legal fees earned after their firm's dissolution in 1990, stemming from a 1984 agreement on revenue sharing that allocated portions of billings and residual profits. Sufrin sued Hosier for breach of contract regarding entitlements to fees from matters like the Lemelson patent cases that continued post-dissolution, and Hosier moved in limine or alternatively for summary judgment to limit or exclude Sufrin's claims. The court denied both motions, holding that the original agreement's distribution formula governs post-dissolution contingent fees under Illinois partnership precedent like Ellerby v. Spiezer, as the partnership continues until affairs are wound up, and that factual disputes over the scope of 'residual profits' make summary judgment inappropriate.

business & regulatory

In Bell v. Douglass, a periodontist who lost money in a real estate investment sued the developer for fraud in Iowa state court and obtained a default judgment after the developer failed to respond to requests for admission. When the developer filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the investor sought to have the debt declared nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) for fraud and § 523(a)(6) for willful injury. The bankruptcy court denied summary judgment on collateral estoppel grounds, conducted a trial, and ruled the debt dischargeable. The district court affirmed the denial of summary judgment because the fraud issue had not been actually litigated in state court, found no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings, but remanded for the bankruptcy court to reassess the § 523(a)(2)(A) claim under the proper legal standards for false representation and actual fraud. The decision rests on principles of collateral estoppel from Grogan v. Garner and the requirement that factual findings in discharge proceedings meet federal standards.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved The Wellness Community-National suing its former affiliate, The Wellness Community Chicago-Western Suburbs (later Wellness House), for breach of a charter agreement after the affiliate terminated the affiliation and failed to fully cease using the "Wellness Community" name as required. Following a bench trial, the court found that the contract's Section 8 mandated the affiliate to remove the name from all activities upon termination notice. The court decided to grant injunctive relief requiring Wellness House to change its name to eliminate the word "Wellness" and barred its future use in corporate or business identification, while also awarding reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to the plaintiff as the prevailing party under the agreement.

business & regulatory

This case involves Argentine lawyers suing to enforce an Argentine court award of legal fees against defendant Harza Engineering Co. in U.S. federal court under diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting claims for recognition of a foreign judgment and an action for debt, but failed to attach the required underlying Argentine judgment as Exhibit A. Instead, they submitted a letter rogatory requesting judicial assistance from a U.S. court. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, while granting leave to file another amended complaint and denying the motion for a security bond without prejudice.

procedure

The case involves a school district challenging an administrative decision under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that found it had failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to a student with autism and mental retardation, and ordered compensatory education. The district moved for summary judgment, arguing that the statute of limitations barred claims before the 1992-93 school year and that there were no material facts in dispute. The court applied a 120-day statute of limitations from state law but found that material issues of fact existed regarding the adequacy of the education provided after spring 1991, based on conflicting findings from the administrative hearings. Therefore, the court denied the motion for summary judgment and ordered the district to comply with the IDEA's "stay-put" provision.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

Roboserve, Inc. sued Kato Kagaku Co., Ltd. claiming breach of contract, wrongful termination, and fraud over a concession agreement for installing and operating minibars at the Hyatt Regency Chicago hotel managed by Hyatt. A jury found for Roboserve on all counts and awarded nearly $10 million in compensatory and punitive damages. Kato then moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur. The court granted the motions for judgment as a matter of law and remittitur in part and denied the motion for a new trial, applying Illinois contract law on issues including the agreement's duration, performance obligations, anticipatory repudiation, and vicarious liability for punitive damages.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Hudson v. Soft Sheen Products, Inc., plaintiffs alleged that their supervisor, Larry Allen, sexually harassed them at work and brought Title VII claims against both the company and Allen individually, along with common-law claims. Allen moved for judgment on the pleadings on the Title VII counts, arguing that individuals cannot be held liable in their personal capacity under the statute. The court granted the motion, holding that the term "employer" in Title VII, including its "any agent" language, incorporates respondeat superior but does not create individual liability, a conclusion unchanged by the 1991 Amendments' addition of compensatory and punitive damages because those damages are capped according to the size of the employer and the legislative history shows no intent to expand liability to individuals. The court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining battery claim against Allen.

civil rightslabor & employment