This case involves an insurance coverage dispute between the City of Waukegan and its insurers stemming from a $9 million civil rights verdict against the City in a wrongful conviction lawsuit brought by S. Alejandro Dominguez, who was exonerated by DNA evidence. The court addressed multiple summary judgment motions regarding whether various primary and excess policies triggered duties to defend or indemnify the City for the verdict, as well as claims under Section 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code for unreasonable claims handling. The court denied American Safety's motion for summary judgment, granted Waukegan's cross-motion, and held that American Safety breached its duty to defend, must indemnify the City up to policy limits, and violated Section 155. It also ruled that Interstate must indemnify but did not breach its duty to defend or violate Section 155, while finding that policies from Northfield, Underwriters, and Westport were not triggered by the underlying allegations. The decisions rested on interpretations of policy language, the timing of coverage periods from 1991-2006, and the nature of the claims in the Dominguez civil case.
The case involved David Grochocinski, as Chapter 7 trustee for CMGT, Inc.'s bankruptcy estate, suing Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP and one of its attorneys for legal malpractice arising from the firm's prior representation of CMGT. After granting summary judgment to the defendants, the court considered Mayer Brown's motion for sanctions against Grochocinski and his special counsel under the court's inherent authority and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The court denied sanctions as to Grochocinski, concluding that his limited involvement and reliance on counsel did not amount to bad faith, but granted sanctions in part against the attorneys for failing to adequately investigate the facts and merits before pursuing the claim, ordering them to pay half the defendants' fees for the trustee's deposition and the sanctions motion.
The Department of Labor sued International Detective & Protective Service, Ltd., its president, and its chief operating officer under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages on behalf of 57 security guards, while also seeking an injunction against future violations. The court granted the Department's motion for summary judgment on both liability and damages, awarding $203,155.20 and issuing a permanent injunction. The guards were found to be employees, not independent contractors, because the company exercised substantial control through work procedures, scheduling, supervision, reporting requirements, and at-will termination, and the company met the FLSA's enterprise coverage thresholds but failed to pay overtime. The defendants did not contest the Department's facts, which were therefore deemed admitted, and the court determined an injunction was necessary due to insufficient assurances of future compliance.
The case involved Hartford Casualty Insurance Company seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the Board of Education of the City of Chicago under an insurance policy issued to Natraj Dance Academy for a lawsuit brought by Shiney Haridas, who alleged she fell on a broken sidewalk at a school during a recital. The court granted Hartford's motion for summary judgment. The Board did not qualify as an additional insured because there was no written agreement between the Academy and the Board to add the Board to the policy as an additional insured, and the permit's requirement to indemnify the Board and provide insurance did not satisfy that condition under Illinois law. The court did not address whether the Board provided timely notice of the suit.
In Berry v. Chicago Transit Authority, plaintiff Cynthia Berry alleged that her former employer, the CTA, discriminated against her on the basis of sex and retaliated against her for opposing discrimination, in violation of Title VII, by placing her in administrative holding for three years after a 2006 workplace incident and then terminating her employment. The CTA moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that many of Berry's claims were barred by res judicata from a prior lawsuit involving the same incident, that Berry failed to identify similarly situated male employees treated more favorably, and that she could not show that her termination resulted from discrimination or retaliation rather than the CTA's neutral policy on returning employees to work.
In this bankruptcy case, Holly Marine Towing filed for Chapter 11 and later converted to Chapter 7, after which a trustee sold the Ewing Property amid disputes involving the estate's claims against principal Glenn Dawson and a related divorce proceeding with co-principal Holly Headland. The trustee, Dawson, and Headland reached a settlement distributing half the net proceeds to the estate and splitting the rest, with Dawson and Headland then directing portions of their shares to pay their attorneys, including $65,000 to Bauch & Michaels; Scouler, an administrative claimant awarded fees by the court, objected that the arrangement violated priority rules and was not in the estate's best interest. The bankruptcy court approved the settlement over Scouler's objection, and on appeal the district court denied motions to dismiss for lack of standing and defective notice, then affirmed the approval. The court reasoned that the payments to Bauch came from the individuals' non-estate assets rather than estate funds, so priorities were not implicated, and the deal reasonably avoided the risks and costs of litigating the estate's claims against Dawson and Headland. The court therefore upheld the ruling and denied Scouler's request for pro rata distribution or disgorgement.
