Mark R. Filip

This case involves four plaintiffs, former union officers and members, suing multiple union entities and individual officers under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), RICO, and Illinois state contract law. The claims center on the plaintiffs' 2004 terminations from various union positions, alleged violations of union constitutions and bylaws regarding due process and democratic procedures, and claims of improper disciplinary actions and financial misconduct. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing with prejudice the LMRDA Section 101(a)(1) claims, dismissing without prejudice the Section 101(a)(5) claims in part, the RICO claims, and certain state contract claims, while allowing other claims to proceed. The reasoning focused on statutory applicability, pleading deficiencies, arbitration agreement requirements under federal and state law, and timeliness issues for challenging arbitration awards.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved David Jacobs suing the Xerox Corporation Long Term Disability Income Plan under ERISA for civil statutory penalties under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c), alleging failure to provide plan documents upon request after prior rulings had resolved other counts. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court ruled for the defendant on the remaining claim. The decision rested on findings that requests for documents were sent to human resources personnel rather than the designated plan administrator at the address specified in the summary plan document, with no evidence of proper requests to the administrator or grounds for estoppel. The court also noted the absence of prejudice from any delay in document production as relevant to whether penalties should be imposed.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a personal injury claim by Illinois resident Debra Byrd-Tolson against Moran Foods, Inc., the operator of a Chicago grocery store, arising from a slip-and-fall incident on June 6, 2004, in which she allegedly fell on grapes or a wet substance in one of the aisles. After initially suing the wrong defendant and amending her complaint to add Moran, the plaintiff sought damages under Illinois tort law. The district court granted Moran's motion for summary judgment on two independent grounds. First, the suit was untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. Second, the plaintiff failed to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on the elements of her negligence claim, including that Moran knew or should have known of the alleged hazard. The court treated the motion as one for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and applied the Local Rule 56.1 framework to the record.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Flentye v. Kathrein, plaintiffs Tim Flentye and his real estate company sued competitors Michael Kathrein and his LLC for registering domain names like flentye.com and timflentye.com, using meta tags with the Flentye name, and publishing allegedly false and defamatory statements on websites accusing Flentye of illegal surveillance, ethical lapses, and other misconduct. The claims included violations of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and Lanham Act, Illinois deceptive trade practices, defamation, misappropriation of identity, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, allowing several claims to proceed while dismissing others for insufficient pleading or other deficiencies. The court reasoned that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged bad faith domain registration and use after a prior UDRP arbitration ordered transfer of the domains, that certain defamation statements were adequately pled despite some specificity issues, and that corporate status did not automatically bar all claims, but found some counts required more particularity or failed to state a viable cause of action.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves landscape contracting companies and their owners suing the Director of the Illinois Department of Labor in his official capacity, alleging that the Department's enforcement of the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act violates their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent enforcement of the Act's prevailing wage requirements on their public projects in eight specified Illinois counties. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, for the court to abstain in light of a parallel state-court proceeding. The court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, analyzing the claims under standards for substantive and procedural due process while noting issues such as property interests, statutes of limitations, and the historical context of Lochner-era precedents.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatorycivil rights

The case involves plaintiff Rosemary Higbee suing her former attorneys in Illinois state court for professional malpractice arising from their representation in an underlying federal employment discrimination lawsuit against her former employer. Defendants removed the malpractice action to federal district court, prompting plaintiff's motion to remand it back to the Circuit Court of Cook County. The court granted the remand motion, holding that the case presents only state-law claims that do not involve a substantial disputed federal question sufficient to confer "arising under" subject-matter jurisdiction. The reasoning rests on precedents establishing that attorney malpractice suits tied to federal litigation ordinarily belong in state court, as they do not require resolution of significant federal issues and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over related Title VII matters.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involves a dispute over the transfer of a 17.65% economic interest in Intrinsic Technologies, LLC, an IT consulting company, from Michael Gersten to his father, plaintiff Michael Gersten, following Michael's departure from the firm. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that he validly acquired the interest under the company's 1999 Operating Agreement and is entitled to associated rights, such as access to books and records, while defendants denied the transfer's validity and moved to stay the proceedings pending arbitration. The court granted the motion to stay under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 3. It reasoned that the plaintiff's claims directly arose under or in connection with the Operating Agreement, which contained a broad arbitration clause requiring disputes to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with AAA commercial rules, and that the clause was valid and enforceable as part of the parties' mutual contractual obligations.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute between reinsurance underwriters (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s) and Argonaut Insurance Company over the appointment of arbitrators under treaties containing an arbitration clause governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and the UN Convention on Foreign Arbitral Awards. Argonaut demanded arbitration but failed to appoint its arbitrator within thirty days of the underwriters’ request, after which the underwriters appointed both arbitrators pursuant to the clause allowing them to do so. The court granted the underwriters’ motion for summary judgment confirming the appointments and denied Argonaut’s cross-motion. The core reasoning was that the contract’s reference to “thirty days” unambiguously meant calendar days (not business days), that Argonaut missed the deadline, and that the court was required to enforce the parties’ agreement without rewriting its terms.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Stratievsky, defendants Boris and Lev Stratievsky were charged in a criminal indictment with conspiracy to commit money laundering and a related attempt under 18 U.S.C. § 1956, stemming from their alleged involvement in a government sting operation where an FBI cooperating witness posed as an associate of Ukrainian drug traffickers seeking to launder cash proceeds. The defendants moved to dismiss or strike those counts, arguing that the indictment failed to sufficiently allege the required elements, including a subsequent separate financial transaction involving net proceeds. The court denied the motion, ruling that the indictment adequately stated the elements of the offenses in statutory terms, provided notice of the charges, and met the standards of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1) by describing the essential facts without needing exhaustive detail. The decision emphasized a practical review of the indictment as a whole rather than a hypertechnical analysis.

criminal lawprocedure

In this consolidated case, plaintiff Moses Cheung alleged that defendant Deloitte & Touche fraudulently induced him into participating in an unsuccessful corporate roll-up transaction forming EPS Solutions Corp., which later collapsed. After Cheung filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy without disclosing the potential claims, the defendant moved to dismiss for want of prosecution, while the plaintiff suggested dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to issues over the real party in interest (the bankruptcy estate). The court held that it possessed subject matter jurisdiction, as Article III standing requirements were satisfied and the estate had benefited from related settlements and proceedings. Although the plaintiff had long failed to initiate arbitration as previously ordered by the court, the opinion afforded him one final twenty-one-day opportunity to commence arbitration before dismissing the case with prejudice for want of prosecution.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a pro se plaintiff who sued a Chicago police officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, illegal search, and excessive force, along with a state-law claim for malicious prosecution, arising from a July 2001 traffic stop and arrest in which the officer allegedly pointed a gun, searched the plaintiff's car, and caused injuries during handcuffing; the criminal charges were later dismissed by nolle prosequi in 2003. The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The core reasoning was that the federal claims were subject to a two-year statute of limitations and the state claim to a one-year limit, both of which had expired by the May 2005 filing date, with no facts alleged to support equitable tolling or other exceptions that would render the claims timely.

civil rightsprocedurecriminal law

In this patent infringement case, plaintiff Yoon Ja Kim sued defendant Sara Lee Bakery Group under 35 U.S.C. § 271, alleging that various Sara Lee bread products infringed her U.S. Patent No. Re. 36,355, which covers a potassium bromate replacer composition for flour-based products. The suit followed an earlier, ongoing action (the "First Action") between the same parties in the same district, where Kim had accused two specific Sara Lee products and extensive discovery had occurred, including production of hundreds of Sara Lee formulas; Kim's later attempts to add more products via amended interrogatory answers were denied. The court granted Sara Lee's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), holding that the claims were barred by the doctrine against claim-splitting (a component of res judicata) because the additional products and formulas at issue here were known to Kim during the First Action, could have been pursued there, and the prior court had not expressly reserved her right to bring a separate suit. The court rejected arguments that the denial of amendment in the First Action left the door open for this duplicative litigation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves Amakua Development LLC suing the Warner Defendants and JTL Capital LLC over a failed real estate transaction involving a hotel property in Los Cabos, Mexico. Amakua alleged that it introduced the Warner Defendants to the deal under a non-disclosure and non-circumvention agreement signed by their representative, but the Warner Defendants circumvented Amakua, leading to claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, quantum meruit, and intentional interference with contract. The Warner Defendants moved to dismiss the implied covenant and fraud claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss the implied covenant claim without prejudice and denied the motion to dismiss the fraud claim, reasoning that the fraud allegations sufficiently stated a claim under applicable law while the covenant claim did not add a distinct basis for relief beyond the contract allegations.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

In Bell v. Robert, petitioner Timothy Bell, who was convicted in Illinois state court of criminal sexual assault and sentenced to eight years in prison, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He alleged that delays in his direct appeal—stemming from issues with retained counsel, dismissal for want of prosecution, and subsequent reinstatement with appointed appellate counsel—constituted an undue delay that warranted federal intervention to hear his underlying claims. The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice, holding that Bell had not exhausted his state remedies because the state appellate process was now proceeding with reasonable diligence after the appointment of the State Appellate Defender. The court reasoned that the primary delays occurred before state authorities were on notice of any problem and that no inordinate state-caused delay excused the exhaustion requirement. The appeal was actively moving forward with briefing scheduled at the time of dismissal.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In Hamilton v. O'Connor Chevrolet, Inc., the plaintiffs purchased a used car from the defendant dealership and sued under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, alleging misrepresentations about the vehicle's ownership history, condition, value, and the existence of warranties or service contracts, as well as improper disclaimer of implied warranties in the retail contract. After previously ruling on federal claims, the court addressed summary judgment motions on the remaining state and related federal claims. The court denied summary judgment on the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim (Count V) and one Consumer Fraud Act claim (Count VII) because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the warranty terms and any misrepresentations. It granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part on the second Consumer Fraud Act claim (Count VIII) due to insufficient evidence supporting some allegations of deception.

business & regulatory

The case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Erik Killingsworth after his 2001 Illinois conviction for possession of a controlled substance within public housing with intent to deliver. Killingsworth claimed he was not fully advised of his constitutional rights upon arrest and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move to suppress his confession. The district court denied the petition in full. It reasoned that the state appellate court's rejection of the ineffective-assistance claim was not objectively unreasonable under Strickland v. Washington, because counsel's decision not to pursue suppression appeared to be a strategic choice and the record supported the state court's credibility findings regarding the confession. The court also found no basis to grant relief on the Miranda claim given the evidence presented at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Ronald Miller suing Illinois Gaming Board agent Chris Lewis and Harrah’s casino after an incident at the casino where Miller won money at craps, was later accused of a $500 overpayment, detained by Lewis and casino security, and subjected to an arrest process including having a gun pointed at him. Miller brought claims against Lewis for false arrest and excessive force under the Constitution, and against Harrah’s for false imprisonment, fraud, and extortion. The court granted Harrah’s motion for summary judgment in full and granted Lewis’s motion in part while denying it in part, finding that the detention and use of force by Lewis did not violate Miller’s rights under the circumstances of a rapidly evolving situation involving a potential theft and that qualified immunity applied to the excessive force claim.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs James Costa and Richard Alvarado sued Mauro Chevrolet, Inc., its employees Jason Larson and Joseph Bosco, and GMAC, alleging violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, Article 9 of the Illinois Commercial Code, and related common-law claims arising from an attempted car purchase and financing arrangement intended to build Alvarado's credit history. The defendants filed motions to dismiss multiple counts of the amended complaint. The court denied all the motions, holding that the allegations sufficiently pleaded claims under the federal and state statutes, including that the dealership's failure to submit the credit application constituted an adverse action requiring notice under the ECOA and FCRA, and that the other counts stated plausible violations based on the facts alleged.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by the estate of Rebecca Stolarczyk against her former employer, Senator International Freight Forwarding, LLC, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act through unlawful termination and failure to provide reasonable accommodations for her disability. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The decision was based on the inadmissibility of key evidence from the EEOC charge and investigator's notes as hearsay, leaving no admissible proof of an adverse employment action, and the plaintiff's inability to show that regular attendance was not an essential job function or that a reasonable accommodation existed given the extended absence required.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Daniel B. Sims, a parolee from a 1982 federal 25-year sentence for mail fraud convictions, seeking termination of his parole supervision on the grounds that the U.S. Parole Commission lost jurisdiction after his initial mandatory release date in 2002. The court denied the petition. The core reasoning is that 18 U.S.C. §§ 4163 and 4164, which were not repealed in a manner affecting this case, require a mandatorily released prisoner to remain under supervision as if on parole until the full term of the sentence less applicable credits, and precedent establishes that the Commission retains jurisdiction so long as a violator warrant issues timely before the maximum term expires.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power