District Court, N.D. Illinois — appointed by George H.W. Bush
Vance v. Rumsfeld
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2010-03-05 · cited 9×
The case involved two American citizens detained by U.S. military forces in Iraq in 2006 after they reported suspicious weapons transactions at their private security firm employer to FBI and other officials; the plaintiffs alleged they were held in solitary confinement as "security internees," denied counsel and evidence at status hearings, and subjected to coercive interrogations without due process. On defendant Donald Rumsfeld's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, the court denied dismissal as to Count I but granted it as to Counts II and III. The core reasoning was that Count I adequately stated claims for unconstitutional conditions of confinement under Bivens and related precedents, while the access-to-courts and habeas-related claims in the other counts failed because the brief detentions were within a reasonable period for initial status determinations under Boumediene v. Bush and any backward-looking access claims were duplicative of Count I.
civil rightsfederal powerprocedure
C&R Mortgage Corp. v. Ulz
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2009-11-20 · cited 2×
This case involves C&R Mortgage Corporation's appeal from a bankruptcy court decision disallowing its unsecured claim against the estate of Conrad Ulz. The claim was based on an assigned default judgment from a prior fraud lawsuit where both C&R and Ulz were defendants. The bankruptcy court held that the assignment violated the Illinois Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act because C&R had settled with the plaintiff without extinguishing Ulz's liability, preventing recovery of contribution. The district court affirmed, reasoning that the assignment was an indirect attempt to obtain contribution prohibited by the Act.
torts & liabilityprocedure
University of Chicago Medical Center v. Sebelius
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2009-08-03 · cited 3×
The case involved a dispute over the calculation of Medicare indirect medical education (IME) payments to the University of Chicago Medical Center for fiscal year 1996, specifically whether residents performing educational research should be counted in the full-time equivalent resident ratio used to determine additional payments to teaching hospitals under the prospective payment system. The Hospital sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services after she excluded such residents on the ground that their research did not involve direct patient care. The court granted the Hospital's motion for summary judgment and denied the Secretary's cross-motion, ruling that the 1996 regulation (42 C.F.R. § 412.105(g)) required only that residents be enrolled in an approved program and assigned to a PPS-covered portion of the hospital, without any additional direct patient care limitation on research. The court reasoned that the regulation's plain text imposed no such requirement and that Congress's 1997 amendment imposing a direct patient care rule only for non-hospital settings indicated its intentional omission for hospital-based activities.
healthcare
United States v. Rosales
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2009-07-01
In United States v. Rosales, defendant Salvador Rosales was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, along with multiple counts of cocaine distribution and possession with intent to distribute. Rosales moved for judgment of acquittal or a new trial, raising arguments including violation of his right to counsel during an overnight recess in cross-examination, improper admission of a cooperating witness's testimony about his understanding of conversations, restrictions on closing argument, and insufficient evidence to support the conspiracy conviction due to periods when an alleged co-conspirator was incarcerated. The district court denied the motion in full, finding no prejudicial errors in the trial proceedings, that the government presented sufficient evidence of an ongoing conspiratorial relationship involving fronted cocaine transactions, and that the jury's verdict was supported by the record.
criminal lawprocedure
City of Chicago v. StubHub, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2009-03-30 · cited 5×
The City of Chicago sued StubHub to collect its 8% amusement tax on resold event tickets sold via the company's online platform and to obtain sales data from 2000 onward. StubHub moved to dismiss, arguing it had no obligation to collect or remit the tax under state law. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the claim for declaratory relief on the tax-collection obligation, while denying it as to other counts. It reasoned that the 2005 amendments to the Illinois Ticket Sale and Resale Act expressly exempt registered internet auction listing services like StubHub from any duty to collect local amusement taxes, and that the state's Preemption Act bars the City from using home-rule authority to impose such obligations on sellers of tangible personal property.
taxesbusiness & regulatory
Corus Bank, N.A. v. De Guardiola
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2008-12-17 · cited 2×
This case involved a dispute over a guaranty on a large loan for a Florida real estate development, where Corus Bank sued borrower entities and guarantor Eduard de Guardiola in both Florida state court and federal court after the borrowers allegedly defaulted. The federal district court granted de Guardiola's motion to abstain under the Colorado River doctrine and stayed the federal proceedings. The court found the federal and Florida cases to be parallel because they involved substantially the same parties and issues arising from the same loan agreement and guaranty. It then applied the relevant factors, including the risk of piecemeal litigation, the progress already made in the state case, and Corus's initial choice of the Florida forum, concluding that abstention was warranted to promote wise judicial administration.
procedurebusiness & regulatoryproperty