Wayne R. Andersen

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case involved consolidated RCRA citizen suits filed by Thomas Snitzer and River Village West LLC against Peoples Gas seeking injunctive relief to address alleged imminent and substantial environmental endangerment from contamination at eight former manufactured gas plant sites along the Chicago River. After the suits were filed, Peoples Gas entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with the EPA under CERCLA to conduct removal actions at the sites. The court considered whether the RCRA suits were barred by CERCLA § 113(h), which precludes challenges to EPA-selected removal or remedial actions. The court lifted a prior stay and granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of Peoples Gas, dismissing the suits on the grounds that they constituted challenges to ongoing EPA actions under the AOC. The reasoning centered on the overlap between the RCRA claims and the EPA's selected remedies, the EPA's superior expertise in addressing the scientific and policy issues involved, and the availability of post-completion CERCLA citizen suits under § 113(h)(4) for any remaining issues.

environmentprocedurefederal power

In this case, prisoner Eddie Alvarado brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Stateville Correctional Center officials, claiming that Officer Gail Williams fired a weapon toward him and other inmates in the recreation yard, causing him to fall and suffer minor injuries including a cut lip, chipped tooth, scraped knee, and pulled groin; that Lieutenant Martin Peto refused to obtain immediate medical care afterward; and that Warden Deirdre Battaglia and others knew of Williams' mental instability yet allowed her to carry a weapon. The court granted the motions to dismiss filed by Battaglia and Peto while denying Williams' motion, permitting the claim against Williams to proceed but terminating the other two defendants. The decision as to Peto rested on the conclusion that the alleged injuries were minor and not obviously serious, so the refusal of prompt medical attention did not amount to deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment standards applied to the well-pleaded facts.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involved the SEC's civil action against James Koenig, the former CFO of Waste Management, Inc., alleging multiple violations of federal securities laws including sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and related rules for misconduct between 1992 and 1996. After a jury found Koenig liable on all counts for sixty violations, the court held a bench trial on remedies and determined that permanent injunctive relief, a bar from serving as an officer or director of any public company, disgorgement of $831,500 plus prejudgment interest, and a matching civil penalty were appropriate. The court's reasoning centered on the jury's findings of liability, expert evidence showing substantial shareholder losses exceeding $1.45 billion attributable to the violations, and the need for deterrence beyond mere disgorgement to prevent future misconduct. Requests for an indemnity bar were denied due to lack of supporting authority.

business & regulatory

This case involves a lawsuit by the Sierra Club and American Bottom Conservancy against the EPA Administrator to compel action on a Clean Air Act Title V operating permit for the Onyx Facility in Illinois, which had remained pending for over a decade due to state delays in the permitting process. The Administrator moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming the duty to issue or deny the permit was discretionary rather than mandatory and that the case had become moot after the agency began federal permit proceedings. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the Clean Air Act provision stating the Administrator 'shall issue or deny the permit' creates a nondiscretionary duty that must be fulfilled within a reasonable timeframe, as the statute would be meaningless without one, and the multi-year delay far exceeded any plausible deadline, thereby establishing jurisdiction under the citizen suit provision.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case concerns Abbott Laboratories and Astellas Pharma's motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent Sandoz and Teva from manufacturing and selling generic cefdinir antibiotic products, based on alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,935,507 covering a specific crystalline form (Crystal A anhydrate) of the drug. The court denied the motion. It found that plaintiffs had not shown a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their infringement claim, because the generics consist of cefdinir monohydrate (Crystal B), which is not covered by the patent's product-by-process claims, the products do not contain meaningful amounts of the patented anhydrate form, and there was no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

business & regulatoryhealthcareproperty

Imogene Manning, a longtime employee at the University of Chicago Hospitals, sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act alleging failure to accommodate her bladder cancer disability by not immediately reinstating her after medical leave and retaliation for filing EEOC charges, including less favorable treatment and eventual termination. The court granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment on the ADA claims. It reasoned that Manning failed to make a prima facie case of retaliation because her poor performance meant she was not meeting legitimate expectations and no similarly situated coworkers existed for comparison; the hospital provided a legitimate reason for termination based on documented errors and progressive discipline; and no evidence showed the reason was pretextual given the extended time gap after her charges and absence of any retaliatory comments.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this case, pharmaceutical companies Genendo and Phil and Kathy’s Inc. sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the FDA Commissioner seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to establish the legality of their methods for importing and repackaging foreign-labeled prescription drugs, as well as the return of drugs seized during a criminal search at a repackaging facility. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that the claims were not ripe for review because the FDA’s seizure actions did not constitute final agency action and the FDCA does not permit pre-enforcement judicial review of probable cause determinations, as established in Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry. The court further reasoned that plaintiffs could challenge the issues in the parallel civil forfeiture proceeding or through administrative channels such as citizen petitions, and that sovereign immunity was waived under the APA but did not overcome the jurisdictional defects.

business & regulatoryhealthcarefederal powerprocedure

This case involves a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by plaintiff Larry McCall-Bey against Chicago police officers Ron Rempas and Paul Kirner. The plaintiff alleged that officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights during a street stop in a high-crime area that led to the discovery of narcotics, his arrest, and subsequent prosecution, which was later dismissed after a state court judge indicated a lack of probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on both the unreasonable search and seizure claim and the malicious prosecution claim. It reasoned that the officers had reasonable suspicion for the stop based on the plaintiff's abrupt behavior and closed fist in a known drug area, and that there was no evidence the officers acted maliciously in initiating the prosecution. The case was terminated with judgment entered for the defendants.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a nonprofit organization, Global Relief Foundation, challenging the FBI's search and seizure of its headquarters and the Treasury Department's blocking order freezing its assets following the September 11 attacks, as part of an investigation into potential terrorist connections. The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to release the seized materials and unfreeze the funds. The court denied the motion, holding that the search was authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the asset freeze under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act via Executive Order 13224. The court reasoned that the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on its claims that these actions violated various constitutional provisions or statutes, after reviewing classified materials ex parte and finding compelling national security interests.

federal powercriminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved Global Relief Foundation, a nonprofit, challenging the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control decision to block its assets and records under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act following the September 11 attacks, as authorized by Executive Order 13224; the foundation also contested related FBI searches and sought to unfreeze its funds while arguing the actions violated constitutional rights. The court denied the foundation's emergency motion to bar ex parte, in camera review of government submissions supporting its opposition to a preliminary injunction. The decision rested on the need for fact-intensive judicial review of asset-blocking claims under IEEPA, which may involve foreign interests, and on precedents like Abourezk v. Reagan allowing such confidential proceedings in extraordinary national security cases where the government shows compelling concerns and discloses as much information publicly as possible without compromising privileges.

federal powercivil rightsprocedure

Hafis Haqq filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Illinois convictions for first-degree felony murder and second-degree murder arising from a shooting at a car dealership. The U.S. District Court denied the petition. The court reasoned that Haqq failed to show ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington because the Illinois Appellate Court properly applied the two-prong test and found neither deficient performance nor prejudice from counsel's alleged failure to discover self-defense evidence, and Haqq did not demonstrate that the state court's decision was contrary to clearly established federal law.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit by Mary Readel, as administrator of Donna Lorke's estate, against Vital Signs, Inc., claiming that a PEEP valve component in a hospital respiratory system caused Lorke's death during intubation for a medical procedure. The complaint asserted four counts: negligence/wrongful death, negligence/survival, strict product liability/wrongful death, and strict product liability/survival, based on allegations of improper attachment, manufacturing defect, or inadequate warnings. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that no evidence showed the PEEP valve proximately caused the injuries. The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiff's expert affidavit raised a genuine issue of material fact on proximate cause sufficient to defeat summary judgment under both negligence and strict liability theories.

torts & liability

The case involved a former police recruit who sued the City of Aurora after his discharge from the Aurora Police Department in 1997, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII for a prior discrimination charge he had filed. The plaintiff claimed he was subjected to different employment terms and fired because of his race and protected activity, while the defendant maintained that he was terminated for failing to meet performance standards in the Field Training Program despite multiple extensions and feedback. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation under the McDonnell Douglas framework because he could not show satisfactory job performance or any causal connection to his race or prior complaint. The court further found that the employer articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the discharge based on consistent below-acceptable ratings across evaluation categories, and the plaintiff offered no evidence that this reason was pretextual.

civil rightslabor & employment

In Brown v. Knapp, plaintiff James Brown sued Officer James Knapp and the City of Markham under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that officers executing a search warrant for stolen windows at his home seized additional unlisted items including tools and weapons without probable cause, violating his Fourth Amendment rights, and that he was denied due process by not receiving a hearing on the return of those items; he also brought a Monell claim against the city for failure to train or supervise. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment and due process claims but granted it on the Monell claim against the City of Markham. The core reasoning was that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding the individual officer's actions and the lack of a hearing, while the Monell claim failed because the plaintiff could not show an official municipal policy or custom, as the evidence involved only a single incident by one officer without prior notice to the city.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure