Virginia Mary Kendall

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.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

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.

proceduretorts & liability

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.

labor & employment

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.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

Ramona Duncan, a 75-year-old nursing supervisor, sued Thorek Memorial Hospital under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, claiming in Count I that the hospital discriminated against her based on age by reducing her hours and in Count II that it retaliated after she complained. The court granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment on both counts. On the discrimination claim, the court found no direct or circumstantial evidence that age motivated the actions, as the shift changes from eight- to twelve-hour schedules applied to all supervisors and alleged age-related comments were inadmissible hearsay. On the retaliation claim, Duncan did not establish a prima facie case or show that the hospital's stated reasons were pretextual.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Moore v. P & G-Clairol, Inc., plaintiff Maria Moore sued the manufacturer of Clairol hair dye after suffering an allergic reaction following use of the product, claiming it was unreasonably dangerous and that its warnings and instructions were inadequate. The defendant moved to exclude Moore’s expert witness under Daubert standards and for summary judgment, arguing the expert lacked proper qualifications and used unreliable methods. The court granted the motion to exclude, finding the expert’s opinions inadmissible due to insufficient expertise in relevant areas like consumer product labeling and lack of independent testing or reliable methodology. Without admissible expert testimony to establish that the dye was defective or caused the injuries—elements not within ordinary lay knowledge—the court held Moore could not prove her product liability claims and entered summary judgment for Clairol.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Plaintiff Vincent Peters sued Kanye West and related record labels for copyright infringement, alleging that West copied lyrics from Peters's 2006 song "Stronger" for West's 2007 hit of the same name. The court granted West's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), holding that Peters failed to plausibly plead substantial similarity between the works. After filtering out unprotectable elements such as common phrases and the idea of the maxim "what doesn't kill me makes me stronger," the court found as an ordinary observer that the remaining lyrics were not substantially similar in content or style. The court also rejected a claim of fragmented literal similarity, concluding that the shared short phrases lacked sufficient qualitative significance.

procedureproperty

In this case, plaintiff Nora Gilhooly sued her former employer UBS Securities under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging sex discrimination that included heightened scrutiny of her work, assignment of unsuitable tasks after her transfer, and harassment that forced her to resign. UBS moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion without prejudice, holding that the allegations did not plausibly show discriminatory intent under the direct method or establish that working conditions were so intolerable as to support a constructive discharge claim. The complaint lacked specific facts demonstrating that similarly situated male employees were treated better or that the alleged criticism rose to the level of severe harassment required for such claims.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Georgia-Pacific sued Kimberly-Clark for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, claiming that Kimberly-Clark's bath tissue products infringed Georgia-Pacific's registered 'Quilted Diamond Design' trademarks used on its Quilted Northern tissue. Kimberly-Clark moved for summary judgment, arguing that the design was functional and thus ineligible for trademark protection. The court granted the motion, finding that the design was disclosed in Georgia-Pacific's own utility patents, which described its benefits for softness, bulk, absorbency, and roll structure, establishing its functionality. Because a functional product feature cannot receive trademark protection, the court canceled Georgia-Pacific's relevant trademark registrations and dismissed all of its claims.

business & regulatory

This case involves Goss International Americas suing multiple related American and Swiss companies for direct and indirect infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,082,724, which covers aspects of printing equipment used in newspaper and publishing industries, along with the defendants' counterclaim seeking declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement. The court considered a special master's 126-page report and recommendation on eleven motions and five cross-motions for summary judgment addressing infringement by four device models, inducement liability for the Swiss entities, invalidity in light of prior art, enablement, lost profits, and willfulness. The court adopted most of the special master's findings, denying summary judgment on infringement for the devices due to genuine issues of material fact (except granting non-infringement on two specific claims of the SLS3000 and SLS3000XL), denying inducement against some Swiss defendants while granting it for others, denying invalidity challenges, granting summary judgment that the patent was enabled, granting in part the lost profits motion, and granting the motion against a finding of willfulness. These rulings rested on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure standards for summary judgment, the scope of the patent claims as construed, and the evidence regarding prior art and the accused devices.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Ledergerber Medical Innovations, LLC and Dr. Walter Ledergerber suing W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. for direct infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,921,418, a patent covering a dual-sided texturized biocompatible ePTFE sheet for medical implants. Gore moved for summary judgment on grounds of patent invalidity and non-infringement. The court granted summary judgment of invalidity, holding that the '418 patent failed to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120 to claim the benefit of the 1987 priority date because an intervening application in the chain did not disclose the claimed invention, and thus the patent was anticipated by an earlier patent issued in 1997. The motion for summary judgment of non-infringement was denied as moot.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision regarding the dischargeability of a debt owed by Barry E. Burke to ColeMichael Investments, LLC, arising from Burke's handling of $301,000 in joint venture funds as legal counsel. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's holding that the debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), as it resulted from Burke's defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity by transferring the funds without authorization or notice and failing to account for them. The court reviewed the bankruptcy court's factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, determining that Burke's actions met the standard for defalcation and that collateral estoppel from the underlying Texas default judgment did not apply due to a lack of specific factual findings in that judgment.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

In Ryan M. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, parents of a four-year-old boy with autism sued the Chicago Public Schools under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)) to recover attorneys' fees and costs after prevailing at a due process hearing on claims that the district failed to provide a free appropriate public education. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the court also addressed a motion to supplement the record. The court granted the motion to supplement, granted in part and denied in part both summary judgment motions, and awarded fees only for time reasonably spent on claims where the parents substantially prevailed, applying standard hourly rates and excluding excessive, duplicative, or unsuccessful work. The decision rested on the IDEA's fee-shifting provision, which permits recovery of reasonable fees for prevailing parties while requiring courts to reduce awards for limited success or improper billing.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved William Jacobs suing Guardian Life Insurance Company and his employer's health plan under ERISA sections 502(a)(1)(B) and 502(a)(3) to recover benefits for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy and drugs like Avastin and Abraxane used to treat his metastatic cholangiocarcinoma, which the insurer had denied as experimental or not sufficiently proven effective based on peer reviews. Jacobs and the defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied Jacobs' motion and granted the defendants' motion, upholding the denials. The core reasoning was that the policy excluded investigational or experimental treatments, the insurer reasonably relied on independent medical peer reviews finding insufficient evidence of effectiveness compared to standard care, and the claims process complied with ERISA requirements.

healthcarelabor & employment

In Everett v. Cook County, plaintiff Carol A. Everett, a former dentist at Cermak Health Services, sued Cook County alleging that her 2007 layoff violated the Shakman Consent Decree prohibiting political considerations in employment, the First Amendment and § 1983 through political patronage, and Title VII through race and gender discrimination; she also sought review of the county's internal proceedings. The district court granted the county's motion for summary judgment on the Shakman, § 1983/First Amendment, and Title VII claims, while relinquishing jurisdiction over the remaining state-law certiorari count. The court reasoned that undisputed facts showed the layoffs resulted from a $130 million healthcare budget cut amid a $500 million county shortfall, that Everett failed to produce evidence linking her termination to political activity or affiliation, and that she could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination or show that the county's nondiscriminatory explanations were pretextual.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfree speech

In Competitive Edge, Inc. v. Staples, Inc., plaintiffs Competitive Edge and David Greenspon sued Staples for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and trade dress infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), alleging that Staples copied their '734 patent for a calculator design and the trade dress of their AdVantage Bubble Calculator. Staples moved for summary judgment on non-infringement of both claims, as well as to strike certain statements and exclude expert testimony. The court granted summary judgment to Staples on both infringement counts, finding no infringement as a matter of law; it also granted the motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Eldon Little for lack of relevant expertise but denied the motion to strike. The decision rested on comparisons of the patented design features and the asserted trade dress elements against Staples' products, along with evidentiary standards for protectability and likelihood of confusion.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved two brothers who filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and sought to exclude their interests in a family trust established by their late father from their bankruptcy estates, claiming the trust qualified as a spendthrift trust under Illinois law. The bankruptcy court sustained the Chapter 7 trustee's objections to these exemptions, and the district court affirmed after consolidating the appeals. The court found that the trust was not a valid spendthrift trust because the beneficiaries held an immediate right to distribution of the principal upon the settlor's death, even though actual distribution had been delayed by disputes among the siblings over the sale of commercial properties held by the trust. This immediate right meant the interests could not be excluded from the estates under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2). The ruling turned on the trust's terms requiring equal distribution to the five children after the father's death and the lack of any provisions creating separate spendthrift protections for specific assets.

propertyprocedure

In this patent case, Callpod sued GN Netcom and related defendants for direct and indirect infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,801,611, prompting a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the patent was invalid. The defendants moved for summary judgment of both non-infringement and invalidity, while the parties also filed multiple motions concerning the admissibility of expert reports and other evidence. The court granted summary judgment of non-infringement after examining the accused products against the patent claims and excluding or limiting certain expert opinions on issues such as microphone bias current and contributory infringement. It denied summary judgment of invalidity, finding genuine issues of material fact remained. The court also ruled on several motions to strike or exclude evidence and expert testimony under Daubert standards.

business & regulatoryprocedure