This case involves multi-plaintiff product liability lawsuits originally filed in California state court by individuals from various states against Bayer defendants and McKesson, a California-based drug distributor, alleging negligence, strict liability, warranty breaches, fraud, and violations of consumer protection laws related to the safety and efficacy of Yasmin, Yaz, and Ocella contraceptives. The Bayer defendants removed the cases to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction based on fraudulent joinder of McKesson by some plaintiffs and misjoinder of claims, after which the cases were transferred to this MDL; plaintiffs sought remand. The court determined that several plaintiffs, including California citizens, had viable claims against McKesson, preventing complete diversity, and that the procedural misjoinder doctrine should not be applied to sever claims and manufacture diversity jurisdiction. It therefore held that the cases were not removable and that traditional fraudulent joinder analysis did not support removal.
Betty Cook sued her former employer, the Illinois Department of Corrections, alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act after she retired in 2008; she claimed the agency denied her a promotion to Correctional Counselor III, assigned her extra duties without higher pay, subjected her to unfair discipline and harassment, and pressured her to retire because of her age. The agency moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence of discrimination or that her working conditions were intolerable enough to constitute constructive discharge. The court denied the motion, holding that disputed issues of material fact remained regarding whether a reasonable employee in Cook's position would have felt forced to retire due to the alleged age-based treatment.
This case involved personal injury claims by plaintiff Cathy Walton against Bayer defendants and Niemann Foods, Inc., a pharmacy, arising from her use of the prescription contraceptive Yasmin, with allegations including strict products liability, negligence, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, and fraudulent misrepresentation. The case was filed in Illinois state court and removed to federal court by Bayer on diversity grounds, prompting plaintiff's motion to remand on procedural and jurisdictional grounds including the joinder of the non-diverse Illinois pharmacy defendant. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that Niemann Foods was fraudulently joined because there was no reasonable possibility of success on the claims against it under Illinois law, as a non-manufacturing pharmacy selling prescription drugs is not subject to strict liability or negligence claims and is protected by the learned intermediary doctrine. The court further determined that the failure to attach the summons to the notice of removal was a curable procedural defect that did not require remand.
In this case, an Illinois prison inmate sued two correctional officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that denial of his request for a vegan diet violated his First Amendment free-exercise rights because the diet was required by his Moorish Science Temple religious practices. The court granted defendants summary judgment on the RLUIPA claim but denied it on the § 1983 claim. It reasoned that defendants had addressed only the lower “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests” standard rather than the compelling-interest and least-restrictive-means test required by Nelson v. Miller for § 1983 free-exercise claims, and that qualified immunity did not shield them. The court therefore allowed defendants thirty days to file an amended summary-judgment motion applying the correct standard.
In this case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a prisoner at Menard Correctional Center alleged that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by exposing him to excessively cold conditions, retaliated against him for filing grievances and a prior lawsuit by various actions including denying commissary privileges and damaging property, and conspired to engage in such retaliation. The court first dismissed Count 5 and several unserved defendants (including "Officer Maue," "Officer Cowan," "Officer White," and "John Doe") without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) due to the plaintiff's failure to effect service within the required time despite notice. On the remaining claims (Counts 1, 8, and 9), the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issues of material fact because the plaintiff had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies through the prison grievance process as required. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff did not properly pursue or complete the grievance procedures before filing suit, and some defendants were never served.
The case involves the United States alleging that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct certain apartment buildings in Shiloh, Illinois with proper accessibility features for persons with disabilities. The court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment on liability because the defendants did not adequately respond to the motion, which under local rules is treated as an admission of the motion's merits. The opinion details how the apartments lacked accessible routes, proper entrances, mailboxes, and other features required by the FHA guidelines. The core reasoning relies on the defendants' procedural default and the uncontested evidence of non-compliance in the design and construction by the various parties involved.