David R. Herndon

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.

proceduretorts & liability

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

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.

religious libertycivil rightscriminal law

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.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

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.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved MarcTec, LLC suing Johnson & Johnson and Cordis Corporation for alleged infringement of two patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,128,753 and 7,217,290) by the Cypher stent, a drug-eluting medical device. The patents describe surgical implants or devices with a heat-bondable polymeric material containing a therapeutic agent that is non-flowable at room temperature but becomes adherent when heated. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, concluding that the Cypher stent did not meet the claim limitations either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, based on the court's prior claim construction and the prosecution history estoppel that prevented recapture of disclaimed subject matter like balloon-expandable stents.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved claims by the United States that seven apartment buildings failed to meet the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act. Third-party plaintiffs, facing potential liability as defendants, filed claims against architects and engineers seeking contribution and indemnification for any FHA violations. The court granted the third-party defendants' motions to dismiss, ruling that the FHA provides neither an express nor an implied right to such contribution or indemnity claims. The decision followed Supreme Court precedent on similar civil rights statutes, examining the statutory language, structure, and legislative history to conclude that Congress did not intend to authorize additional remedies like contribution.

civil rightsprocedure

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by West American Insurance Company against Louis Mund and others, seeking a ruling that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify Mund under two commercial liability policies in connection with an underlying state court lawsuit. The underlying claims against Mund included intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and forcible entry and unlawful detainer, all based on allegations of intentional deception and fraud. The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, declaring no duty to defend or indemnify. The core reasoning was that the policies expressly excluded coverage for bodily injury, property damage, or personal injury that was expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured, and the underlying complaint consistently described intentional conduct that fell squarely within those exclusions.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves consolidated state-law class action claims by shareholders in mutual funds against the funds' sponsors and managers, alleging breach of duties by permitting market-timing arbitrage that devalued shares. The claims were removed to federal court under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), which limits certain state securities class actions. The court denied remand based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding SLUSA conferred federal jurisdiction, but granted remand due to procedural defects in the defendants' multiple removal filings following prior appeals and remands. The core reasoning centered on the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446 and 1447 regarding timely and proper removal notices, consent, and the effect of intervening Supreme Court and appellate rulings on the procedural history.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

In Robinson v. Alter Barge Line, Inc., a former deckhand sued his employer after being terminated shortly following his internal report of crew members' drug and alcohol use aboard river towboats, bringing claims for retaliatory discharge under Illinois common law and the Illinois Whistleblower Act. The defendant removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment, arguing that the state-law claims were preempted by federal maritime law, specifically 46 U.S.C. § 2114, which provides narrower protections for seamen whistleblowers. The court agreed that federal admiralty law governs the seaman-employer relationship and that the broader Illinois causes of action conflict with maritime law's limited exceptions to at-will employment. Applying preemption principles under the Supremacy Clause, the court held that federal law controls and the plaintiff's claims therefore fail as a matter of law. Summary judgment was granted to the defendant.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case involves a consolidated class action complaint by plaintiffs against Monsanto and related companies' pension plans, alleging violations of ERISA including age discrimination in pension benefits under Counts VII, VIII, and IX. Plaintiffs moved to stay those specific counts pending the Supreme Court's resolution of a certiorari petition in Cooper v. IBM Personal Pension Plan, a Seventh Circuit case holding that similar age-discrimination claims in defined benefit plans are not actionable under ERISA § 204(b)(1)(H). The court granted the stay, finding no prejudice to defendants, noting that such stays are routinely granted in similar ERISA cases, and declining to dismiss the claims sua sponte as that is disfavored in the circuit; the remaining counts will proceed on the existing schedule.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Illinois State Police Sergeant James Vest, who was indicted on three counts of illegally possessing and transferring a machine gun under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2) and 26 U.S.C. §§ 5812, 5861, and 5871. Vest, the department's lead rifle instructor, claimed he had proper authority to acquire the Colt M16A2 for official law enforcement use and invoked the statutory law enforcement exception. The court dismissed the charges, holding that the relevant statutes were unconstitutionally vague as applied because they failed to provide clear notice of what constitutes sufficient governmental authority or compliance with registration and transfer rules for law enforcement officers. The opinion emphasized that defining prohibited conduct is a legislative function and that the ambiguous exceptions and requirements left officers without fair warning of criminal liability.

gunscriminal law

The case involved the U.S. government seeking injunctive relief under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to address alleged environmental contamination from a refinery previously owned by Apex Oil's predecessors, along with a declaration that this relief was not discharged in the predecessors' Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The court granted the government's motion for partial summary judgment, declaring that the requested injunctive relief does not constitute a dischargeable "claim" under the Bankruptcy Code. The core reasoning was that under 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(B), an equitable remedy qualifies as a claim only if the breach gives rise to a right to payment, and RCRA section 6973(a) does not permit the government to recover monetary damages, as confirmed by Supreme Court precedent in Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved a civilly committed individual (later his estate) suing a doctor and healthcare provider under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs by delaying treatment for skin cancer and leukemia, plus a state-law claim for medical negligence based on failure to provide court-ordered or specialist-recommended care under Illinois statute. After the plaintiff's death, the defendants moved to dismiss the negligence count for lack of the affidavit from a reviewing health professional required by 735 ILCS 5/2-622. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report, granted the motion, and dismissed Count II, holding that the claim constituted "healing art malpractice" subject to the affidavit requirement, which applies in federal court under Erie principles; prior statements that the count might proceed as a pendent claim did not bind the court under the law-of-the-case doctrine, and no private right of action existed under the cited corrections statute.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involves defendants Jo Ann Carroll and Brian Denny who were indicted on charges including conspiracy to defraud Medicare, violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute, mail fraud, and a false statement by one defendant. The charges stem from their alleged sales of enteral medical supplies to an undercover government entity set up to investigate Medicare fraud, specifically by providing free pumps worth about $76,000 to induce purchases of other items and falsifying invoices and records to protect against audits. The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the indictment arguing that their conduct was not criminal under the relevant statutes and safe harbor provisions, but the court denied the motion after considering the indictment allegations, applicable case law, and legal arguments on what constitutes a kickback or fraud.

criminal lawhealthcare

In Reiser v. Residential Funding Corp., plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Residential Funding Corporation as assignee of second mortgage loans originated by Mortgage Capital Resource Corporation, alleging violations of the Illinois Interest Act, TILA as amended by HOEPA, RESPA, conspiracy, common law fraud, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act based on claims of illegal fees, deceptive charges, and kickback arrangements in high loan-to-value loans. Defendant RFC moved to dismiss, arguing implied repeal of the relevant Interest Act section, expiration of statutes of limitations, inadequate pleading of fraudulent concealment or equitable tolling, and failure to state elements of fraud and conspiracy. The court denied the motion, applying the Rule 12(b)(6) standard that looks only to the sufficiency of the complaint and concluding that the allegations adequately supported the claims, including that the conspiracy count was properly based on the pleaded fraud and consumer fraud causes of action.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs sued defendants in Illinois state court under the Illinois Eavesdropping Act seeking damages and punitive damages. Defendants removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiffs moved to remand, challenging complete diversity by questioning the citizenship of one individual defendant and the corporate defendant, and later adding a new Illinois defendant via amended complaint. The court denied the motion to remand, finding that the amount in controversy was satisfied, the individual defendant was a Missouri citizen, the corporate defendant's principal place of business was in Ohio, and jurisdiction is determined based on the parties at the time of removal.

procedure

This case concerned whether the Xerox Retirement Income Guaranty Plan, a cash balance pension plan, violated ERISA when calculating lump-sum distributions to participants by failing to project their cash balance retirement accounts to normal retirement age using the plan's interest crediting rate before applying the required discount under Internal Revenue Code § 417(e). The court had previously held on partial summary judgment that the plan's method, which instead used lower PBGC rates, was unlawful. On the pending motions, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and awarded class members the difference between the recalculated benefits and the original distributions, plus prejudgment interest at the prime rate from the date of underpayment. The core reasoning was that ERISA and applicable regulations required projection at the plan's actual interest crediting rate, and the plan's approach had systematically underpaid benefits. The court separately granted summary judgment to the individual defendant added as plan administrator, as she had not served in that role.

labor & employment

In Tandy v. Marti, plaintiff Rex Tandy sued defendants including Dave Sinclair Ford under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, claiming Sinclair Ford sold a vehicle with a known bent frame and safety issues to an intermediary dealer (Beach Sales) that later resold it to him. Sinclair Ford moved to dismiss the sole count against it, arguing there was no privity of contract with Tandy and that Tandy failed to provide the required 30-day pre-suit written notice to a vehicle dealer. The court denied the motion to dismiss and the request for attorney fees, ruling that the Act does not require privity between a consumer plaintiff and the merchandise provider, that Tandy had adequately pled all required elements including damages from a deceptive practice in trade or commerce, and that the notice obligation did not apply because Sinclair Ford had no established place of business in Illinois as defined by statute.

business & regulatoryprocedure