Matthew F. Kennelly

In this bankruptcy case, Chapter 7 trustee Gus Paloian sued jewelry companies Geneva Seal and Lester Lampert to recover funds from allegedly fraudulent transfers made by Canopy Financial's directors using company money to buy luxury goods while the company was insolvent. The defendants demanded jury trials in the adversary proceedings and did not consent to trial in bankruptcy court, prompting the trustee to move to strike the demands on the ground that their affirmative defenses asserting setoff rights amounted to claims against the bankruptcy estate. The court denied the motions, holding that the defendants retained their jury trial rights. The core reasoning was that the setoff defenses were not claims or counterclaims against the estate but merely contentions that the defendants should not have to return the funds without receiving the jewelry or its value, distinguishing them from cases where such assertions waived jury rights.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

In this case, pro se plaintiff John Justice sued the Town of Cicero and its president, challenging the town's firearms-registration ordinance and business-licensing requirements as violations of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and provisions of the Illinois Constitution. The suit arose from a 2006 incident in which police seized firearms from Justice's manufacturing business, arrested him, and closed the unlicensed business. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that claim preclusion barred the claims due to a prior lawsuit on the same incident and that the registration requirements did not violate the Second Amendment under intermediate scrutiny, as they served important public safety interests and were reasonably related to those goals; the court also found no violation from the business-licensing rules or other claims.

gunsbusiness & regulatorycivil rights

William Kopfman sued Ensign Ribbon Burners, LLC, alleging that a defective inspirator manufactured by Ensign caused an explosion that injured him while he was working in Illinois. Ensign moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, arguing it was a New York company with insufficient ties to Illinois. The court denied the motion, finding that Ensign had purposefully availed itself of Illinois through ongoing sales to Illinois customers, regular visits by its executives, and a continuing business relationship with the plaintiff's employer, which made the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction consistent with due process. The court also held that venue was proper in the Northern District of Illinois because the explosion and resulting injuries occurred there. The decision focused on the defendant's contacts related to the transaction at issue rather than general business activities.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, Dr. Alexander Chi sued Loyola University Medical Center and Dr. Suneel Nagda for defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on a letter Dr. Nagda sent from Illinois to a hospital in Arizona that allegedly harmed Chi's job prospects there. The court addressed choice-of-law issues and the applicability of the Illinois Citizen Participation Act (ICPA) to the claims in ruling on a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. It determined that Arizona law governs the defamation claim due to the place of injury and the most significant contacts test, rejecting application of Illinois' innocent construction rule. The court further held that the ICPA does not bar the claim because Dr. Nagda's conduct failed the objective prong of the Sandholm test and his alleged subjective intent was to harm Chi rather than obtain a government outcome. The opinion denies the defendants' motion for reconsideration or certification of an interlocutory appeal.

torts & liabilityprocedurefree speech

In Satkar Hospitality Inc. v. Cook County Board of Review, plaintiffs alleged that the Cook County Board of Review revoked a prior property tax assessment reduction for their hotel in retaliation for political contributions to a state legislator, without providing a meaningful hearing on the merits, in violation of due process, equal protection, and First Amendment rights; they also asserted defamation and false light claims against media defendants for reports linking them to bribery. The district court considered motions to dismiss the amended complaint by the Board defendants and the Illinois Review defendants. The court dismissed the claims against the individual Board defendants on immunity or related grounds but otherwise denied the Board defendants' motion, allowing the constitutional claims to proceed, and denied the Illinois Review defendants' motion in full, finding the defamation allegations sufficient and declining to abstain or dismiss on other grounds. The core reasoning centered on the sufficiency of the pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6), the inapplicability of Younger abstention due to the absence of ongoing state proceedings that could address the federal claims, and the lack of a statute of limitations defense properly raised in the opening brief.

taxescivil rightspropertyprocedure

The case involved the EEOC seeking court enforcement of an administrative subpoena served on Aaron's, Inc. during its investigation of a former employee's Title VII race discrimination charge alleging wrongful termination after a criminal background check. Aaron's objected to one request for applicant data from its Illinois stores, arguing the information was irrelevant, overly broad in time and scope, and unduly burdensome to produce in the requested format. The court enforced the subpoena with the limitation that Aaron's need not produce information from franchisee-owned stores, reasoning that the EEOC has broad authority to investigate charges, the requested comparative applicant data was reasonably relevant to determining whether discrimination occurred, and Aaron's failed to show undue burden as the EEOC would accept paper records and no evidence demonstrated a threat to normal business operations. The court also denied as moot Aaron's motion to strike portions of an EEOC declaration.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves claims under the patent false marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, alleging that defendants marked Sure Max antiperspirant packaging with the numbers of two expired patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,000,356 and 5,156,834) after their expiration dates in 2008 and 2009. Plaintiff Paul Luka sued Procter & Gamble, Innovative Brands, Idelle Labs, and Helen of Troy, asserting they did so knowingly to deceive the public. The court granted motions to dismiss by P&G, Idelle, and Helen of Troy for failure to state a claim, finding insufficient allegations of their direct involvement in the marking after licensing the product, but denied Innovative's motion because the license agreement and related allegations supported a plausible claim against it. The court also rejected the defendants' constitutional challenge that section 292 violates the Take Care Clause of Article II, reasoning that the statute provides adequate executive branch control over the qui tam actions, consistent with precedents on similar statutes.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involved charges of bribery, fraud, and conspiracy against U.S. military personnel and defense contractors, including AZ Corporation and its principals John and Tahir Ramin, for allegedly bribing officials to secure and overpay contracts supplying bunkers and barriers at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan. The government sought to introduce redacted statements made by Tahir Ramin to investigators that implicated AZ and John, replacing their names with neutral terms like 'a company' and 'an individual.' The court held that these redactions were insufficient to avoid violating the Confrontation Clause under Bruton v. United States and its progeny because the small number of defendants and case context made the references obvious. As a result, the court ruled that AZ and John would be entitled to separate trials if the statements were admitted.

criminal lawprocedure

In Best v. Berard, plaintiff Eran Best sued the City of Naperville, two police officers, and several television production companies after her 2008 traffic stop and arrest for driving on a suspended license was filmed without her consent and broadcast on the reality show Female Forces, which she claimed caused emotional distress and violated her rights. The court addressed defendants' motion to dismiss Best's claim under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act (IRPA) on First Amendment grounds and their motion for summary judgment on IRPA, privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims based on the statute of limitations. The court granted the motion to dismiss the IRPA claim, ruling that the broadcast fell under IRPA's exemption for non-commercial purposes including public affairs because it depicted truthful footage of an arrest, a matter of public concern. The court applied similar First Amendment reasoning to the remaining claims but deferred ruling on summary judgment, directing the plaintiff to show cause why judgment should not be entered against her on those counts.

free speechcriminal lawcivil rights

The case involved the Central States Pension Fund suing Murphy Bros., Inc., a dissolved corporation, to collect withdrawal liability payments under ERISA and the MPPAA after Murphy ceased operations and withdrew from the pension plan. The court granted the Fund's motion for summary judgment, ordering Murphy to make interim payments plus interest, costs, fees, and liquidated damages, while denying Murphy's motion. The core reasoning was that ERISA requires employers to make interim withdrawal liability payments pending arbitration even if disputing the liability, and Murphy failed to show the Fund's claim was frivolous under the building and construction industry exemption, as the claim had arguable basis in law and fact.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court order in the Chapter 7 estate of Resource Technology Corporation (RTC), where the State of Illinois sought an administrative claim for reimbursement of tax credits provided to a utility under an Illinois statute promoting qualified solid waste energy facilities (QSWEFs). The statute requires QSWEF owners like RTC to reimburse the state for tax credits when triggering events occur, such as cessation of operations, and the dispute centered on whether 2006 amendments to the statute applied retroactively to credits given before June 6, 2006. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling, granting Illinois an administrative claim only for post-amendment credits while denying reimbursement for earlier ones. The core reasoning was that the amended statute lacks clear language indicating retroactive intent, so the default statutory rule against retroactivity applies, meaning RTC had no duty to reimburse pre-2006 credits. Chiplease's appeal and Illinois's cross-appeal were both resolved in favor of this limited allowance.

business & regulatorytaxesprocedure

The case involves Leonel & Noel Corp. (Tikal), an Illinois beer importer and distributor, suing Cervecería Centro Americana (CCA), Central Beer, G.K. Skaggs (GKS), and GKS's president for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, tortious interference, and violations of the Illinois Beer Industry Fair Dealing Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and Lanham Act, arising from changes in distribution agreements, imposition of a new middleman, and eventual termination of Tikal's rights in multiple states. Defendants other than CCA moved for summary judgment, with both sides also moving to strike portions of the opposing Local Rule 56.1 statements. The court granted summary judgment in part on counts five and seven but denied it on the remaining counts, finding genuine issues of material fact on elements such as good cause for termination, wrongful means in interference claims, and related conduct, while denying the motions to strike as moot or within the court's discretion.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

In this product liability case, Amanda and James Smith sued I-Flow Corporation, alleging that a pain pump manufactured by the defendant caused permanent cartilage damage to Mrs. Smith's shoulder by continuously injecting the anesthetic Marcaine after her surgery. The Smiths sought both compensatory and punitive damages, claiming I-Flow marketed the device for shoulder use without adequate safety testing despite known risks. I-Flow moved to strike the punitive damages request, arguing that Michigan law (which prohibits such damages) should apply and that the allegations were insufficient under federal pleading rules. The court denied the motion, holding that California law governs because the defendant's principal place of business is there and California has a stronger interest in regulating its corporate conduct, and that the complaint plausibly alleged malice supporting punitive damages. The court also noted it would consider bifurcating the punitive damages issue at trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Russell v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., a former call center employee sued the company under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime wages, alleging that employees performed off-the-clock work before and after shifts and during breaks. The court had previously conditionally certified the case as a collective action involving hundreds of opt-in plaintiffs from multiple call centers. On the defendant's motion to decertify, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, determining that claims regarding pre-shift computer log-in time shared sufficient common issues to proceed collectively, while other claims involving post-shift work, meal breaks, and individualized practices varied too much among plaintiffs and should be handled separately.

labor & employmentprocedure

Illinois Computer Research sued Harpo Productions for patent infringement, alleging that Harpo’s Oprah’s Book Club website allowed users to view book excerpts in a manner that violated ICR’s patent on methods for displaying limited pages of books online with controls on access and resolution. Harpo denied infringement and asserted defenses including inequitable conduct, moving for summary judgment on the infringement claims, while ICR moved for summary judgment on the inequitable conduct claim. The court granted Harpo’s motion in part, finding no infringement of claim 7 because the website used typed text rather than stored images of book pages, but denied the motion as to the other claims due to unresolved issues of claim construction and factual disputes. The court denied ICR’s motion because Harpo raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the inventor withheld information about similar prior art from the Patent Office, requiring a trial to assess credibility and intent. The core reasoning focused on comparing the accused website’s functionality to the specific limitations in the patent claims and applying the standards for summary judgment and inequitable conduct.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved marine insurers' denial of coverage under a policy for costs incurred by plaintiffs Egan Marine Corp. and Service Welding and Shipbuilding after a 2005 barge explosion that released clarified slurry oil into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, triggering obligations under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and related statutes. Plaintiffs sued for breach of the insurance contract and bad faith claims handling, following a prior partial summary judgment on liability issues. After a bench trial, the court awarded plaintiffs $378,624 in damages on the breach of contract claim, finding that certain post-incident expenses were covered, but ruled for the insurer on the bad faith claim because its coverage decisions were made in good faith without malice or separate tortious conduct. On the insurer's counterclaim, the court entered mixed findings, largely favoring the defendant on several counts related to policy interpretation and notice requirements.

business & regulatoryenvironmenttorts & liability

In Cleary v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., plaintiffs representing a putative class of Illinois residents sued tobacco companies alleging deceptive marketing of 'light' cigarettes as safer than regular cigarettes, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and for unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs had withdrawn their Marlboro Lights claims in 2001 due to a related class action that was later dismissed by the Illinois Supreme Court in Price v. Philip Morris, leading a state court to dismiss those claims in this case as well. After the U.S. Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in Altria Group v. Good permitted similar state-law deception claims, the plaintiffs moved to reinstate the unjust enrichment claim regarding Marlboro Lights. The court denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, vacated the prior dismissal order, and reinstated the claim, concluding that the Altria decision and other circumstances created a materially altered situation that avoided claim preclusion and rendered the earlier interlocutory dismissal unjust.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Khellil, the defendant was indicted on two counts of making false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3) for allegedly inaccurate information about his place and date of last entry into the United States on a Form I-485 application to adjust status and on an AR-11 change of address form submitted to immigration authorities. A jury convicted Khellil on both counts after trial. The court granted the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, finding that the statements were not material because they did not have the effect or potential to impede, interfere with, or influence any decision by the Department of Homeland Security, as the relevant immigration applications had already been adjudicated by the time the forms were submitted or were unrelated to any ongoing agency action. The court reasoned that materiality requires a connection to an agency matter under consideration, which was absent here based on the evidence presented.

immigrationcriminal law

The case involved Illinois riverboat casinos suing former Governor Rod Blagojevich, his campaign fund, and horse racing track operators, alleging that Blagojevich arranged for two state laws taxing casino revenues to fund the tracks in exchange for campaign contributions, in violation of RICO, and seeking a state-law constructive trust over the funds. The defendants moved to dismiss, and the casinos sought a preliminary injunction based solely on the constructive trust claim. The court declined to dismiss the RICO claim, dismissed the constructive trust claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and denied the preliminary injunction on that basis. The court reasoned that the state-law claim lacked an independent basis for federal jurisdiction and could not proceed under supplemental jurisdiction given the circumstances of related state proceedings.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved an appeal by Mirabella Foundation from a bankruptcy court's order directing payment of attorney's fees to Shaw Gussis from settlement funds designated for Mirabella in a Chapter 11 interpleader action regarding investor deposits. The bankruptcy court denied a statutory attorney's lien due to failure to provide proper notice under Illinois law but granted an equitable lien based on the retainer agreement and an email authorizing settlement. The district court remanded the case, holding that the bankruptcy court had not adequately determined whether the email created an equitable assignment of settlement proceeds and that any recovery was limited to reasonable fees under quantum meruit principles after the attorney's withdrawal.

procedureproperty