Joan Humphrey Lefkow

This case concerns whether three insurers—Maxum, Security, and FSIC—had a duty to defend and indemnify their insured, M&M Rental Center, in an underlying TCPA class action lawsuit alleging that unsolicited faxes violated recipients' privacy rights. The court held that Maxum and Security had a duty to defend M&M under their commercial general liability policies' coverage for advertising injury arising from invasion of privacy, while FSIC did not because its policy defined personal and advertising injury more narrowly and did not encompass the claims. The court further ruled that FSIC could recover its defense costs from Maxum and Security via equitable contribution, based on the timing of the faxes and the policies' coverage periods, but left open questions of indemnification duties. The decision relied on the policy language, the nature of TCPA fax-blast claims as implicating seclusion interests, and allocation provisions in the policies.

business & regulatorycivil rightstorts & liability

The case involves Vincent DePinto and his company DePinto Drywall suing Sherwin-Williams and Pulte Homes over problems with paint supplied for a housing development project, including allegations that the paint was defective and caused damage, along with claims that the defendants made defamatory statements, intentionally interfered with DePinto Drywall's customer relationships, and caused emotional distress to DePinto. The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the defamation, interference, and emotional distress counts. The court reasoned that there was insufficient evidence to support the defamation and interference claims, that the individual plaintiff lacked standing to pursue claims belonging to the corporation, and that the facts did not establish a basis for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves a patent dispute between Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (CBOE) and International Securities Exchange, LLC (ISE) over U.S. Patent No. 6,618,707, titled 'Automated Exchange for Trading Derivative Securities.' CBOE filed for declaratory judgment that the patent was invalid and not infringed by its Hybrid Trading System, after ISE had sued CBOE for infringement in another district; the case was transferred and the court had issued claim construction rulings. The court granted CBOE's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, finding no genuine issue of material fact that CBOE's system, which combines electronic and open outcry trading with specific order routing and allocation rules under the Ultimate Matching Algorithm, did not meet the patent's requirements for an automated exchange performing the claimed matching and allocating steps. The decision rested on the lack of evidence showing that CBOEdirect performed the patented functions as construed, leading to termination of the case.

business & regulatory

In Wendorf v. Landers, plaintiffs sued their gym over a one-time $60 fee deducted electronically from their account, claiming it violated the Electronic Fund Transfers Act because the fee was not covered by their written preauthorization for monthly dues and services, along with related Illinois statutory, contract, and conversion claims. The district court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. It reasoned that the facts alleged a plausible EFTA violation under 15 U.S.C. § 1693e(a), as the charge was explicitly not a dues increase and fell outside the scope of the existing EFT authorization for regular payments.

business & regulatory

Pamela Harris, an African-American IDOC employee, sued the State of Illinois Department of Corrections and several officials, alleging race discrimination and retaliation under federal and state laws after she reported an incident of inmate abuse by a correctional officer and related cover-up. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing counts against IDOC and officials in their official capacities on sovereign immunity grounds, dismissing certain state law claims without prejudice for refiling in state court, and dismissing one retaliation claim in part, while allowing the remaining counts to proceed. The decision rested on analysis of federal jurisdiction over the claims, application of state sovereign immunity rules to bar some actions in federal court, and sufficiency of the pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6).

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involves appeals by J.P. Morgan Chase Bank and a bankruptcy trustee from rulings in an adversary proceeding concerning a promissory note related to the sale of a printing press and the bank's actions after the seller's bankruptcy filing. The trustee sought damages for the bank's alleged violations of the automatic stay, UCC § 9-207, and Bankruptcy Code § 549. The district court reviewed the bankruptcy court's findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, and ultimately affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision in part and reversed it in part.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a class action securities lawsuit by purchasers of NeoPharm stock alleging that the company and its officers violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements about the development status and formulation of its experimental cancer drug LEP, as well as control-person claims under Section 20(a). The defendants moved for summary judgment and to exclude the plaintiffs' expert testimony. The court granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part, finding no liability for pre-January 14, 2002 statements because the defendants lacked knowledge of material formulation differences and trial delays until that date, while denying the motion to exclude the expert with leave to raise methodology challenges before trial. The ruling rested on undisputed facts from the Pharmacia collaboration agreement, internal meeting records, and the absence of evidence that NeoPharm was informed of key changes earlier.

business & regulatory

The SEC sued multiple defendants, including distribution agents and escrow agents like Philip Powers, alleging they orchestrated a fraudulent scheme involving Regulation S penny stock offerings that used high-pressure sales tactics, undisclosed high commissions, and misrepresentations to foreign investors. Powers moved to dismiss the aiding-and-abetting counts against him under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the complaint failed to plead scienter or substantial assistance. The court denied the motion, finding the allegations sufficient to infer Powers's knowledge of the fraud through his role in handling escrow funds and documents that contained misleading fee disclosures, and that his actions provided substantial assistance to the primary violators. The court also denied as moot the SEC's motion to strike part of Powers's reply brief.

business & regulatory

This case involves claims by Stephen Patten and other participants in the Northern Trust Company Thrift-Incentive Plan against Northern Trust entities and individuals for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA regarding the Plan's investment in Northern Trust stock during the 2007-2009 financial crisis. The plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to properly manage the employee stock ownership plan, misrepresented information, and had conflicts of interest. The court considered defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, applying standards from cases like Ashcroft v. Iqbal and analyzing the plausibility of the ERISA claims based on the plan documents and alleged facts.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises (LEYE), owner of a family of federally registered 'Lettuce' marks used for restaurant services, suing Leila Sophia AR, LLC and its principal for trademark infringement after they installed a 'Lettuce mix' sign for a new salad-focused restaurant in Chicago near one of LEYE's locations. LEYE sought a preliminary injunction to prevent use of the name. The court granted the injunction, finding that LEYE had a better than negligible likelihood of success on the merits because its marks were valid and protectable, the defendants' use created a likelihood of confusion, and LEYE would suffer irreparable harm without adequate legal remedies. The court further determined that the balance of harms and public interest favored granting relief pending final resolution.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved artist Michael Bergt suing textbook publisher McDougal Littell and printer R.R. Donnelley for copyright infringement and fraud after his painting Primavera was reproduced in a literature textbook. Bergt alleged that the use exceeded the scope of a 1998 license limited to 40,000 copies, with over 1.3 million copies ultimately printed and distributed. The court denied Bergt's motion for summary judgment on copyright liability because a genuine factual dispute existed over whether the license terms were restricted based on the correspondence and invoice between the parties. It granted McDougal's motion in part by dismissing the fraud claim due to Bergt's lack of reliance on any alleged misrepresentation, while denying summary judgment on the requests for disgorgement of profits as to both defendants.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves appeals by South Beach Securities, Inc. and its sole creditor Scattered from a bankruptcy court order denying confirmation of a Chapter 11 reorganization plan and dismissing the case. The plan proposed canceling existing equity interests and issuing new stock to Scattered in satisfaction of its $3.2 million claim, with the goal of preserving South Beach's net operating losses for tax purposes under the Internal Revenue Code. The district court affirmed the denial of confirmation, holding that the plan could not satisfy the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(10) because Scattered was an insider whose acceptance did not qualify as a vote by a non-insider impaired class, and that the plan's principal purpose was tax avoidance in violation of § 1129(d).

business & regulatorytaxes

Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises (LEYE) sued Leila Sophia AR, LLC and its owner to enjoin use of a 'Lettuce mix' sign and a temporary 'Let us be!' banner featuring lettuce images at a planned salad bar restaurant in Chicago, alleging trademark infringement under the Lanham Act based on LEYE's family of registered 'Lettuce' marks for restaurant services. The court addressed LEYE's request for a temporary restraining order against the banner after the defendant covered the original sign. It denied the motion, concluding that the banner was not used as a service mark, was intended to convey a message of protest rather than to indicate source or affiliation, and constituted fair use because it was descriptive and did not create a likelihood of confusion. The ruling did not address the underlying 'Lettuce mix' sign.

business & regulatoryfree speech

The case involved defendant Victor Guzman-Cornejo, who faced federal charges for illegal reentry after deportation, being a felon in possession of a firearm, being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, with the latter three counts based on items found during a 2007 apartment search by U.S. marshals executing an arrest warrant. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, claiming the nightstand drawer containing the gun and drugs was closed at the time of the search, contrary to the officers' account that the items were in plain view. After an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the motion to suppress, crediting the defendant's testimony that the drawer was closed and finding that the sock and opaque bags were not single-purpose containers whose contents could be inferred from their appearance, so the plain view doctrine did not apply and a warrant was required.

criminal lawproceduregunsimmigration

In this ERISA case, retired Allstate employees sued the company, its retirement plan, and the plan's administrative committee, alleging that the committee breached fiduciary duties by failing to adequately disclose how Social Security offsets were calculated using estimated compensation history and that the plan's estimation methods caused an improper forfeiture of vested pension benefits. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing failure to state a claim, lack of administrative exhaustion, and that the statute of limitations barred one plaintiff's claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss in most respects, holding that the complaint sufficiently alleged misleading disclosures and unreasonable assumptions that could support both the fiduciary-duty and nonforfeiture claims, that exhaustion was not required or was adequately pled, and that the most analogous limitations period had not expired. One plaintiff was dismissed from the fiduciary-duty count on statute-of-limitations grounds. The ruling rested on the plan's summary description, the defendants' knowledge that actual compensation would increase most benefits, and ERISA precedent regarding disclosure and forfeiture.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this bankruptcy case, Automotive Professionals, Inc. (API), a vehicle service contract provider, filed for Chapter 11 protection amid financial difficulties. The State of Illinois, through its Director of Insurance, sought to dismiss the bankruptcy proceeding to allow state-court rehabilitation and liquidation under the Illinois Insurance Code, but the bankruptcy court denied the motion and ordered the turnover of estate property. The State then requested leave from the district court to appeal these interlocutory orders. The district court denied the motions for leave to appeal, finding that the appeals did not present a controlling question of law with substantial grounds for difference of opinion or that immediate appeal would materially advance the termination of the litigation, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

In United States v. Smairat, the defendant was charged with wire fraud and money laundering in connection with alleged misuse of Illinois LINK food stamp benefits at his grocery store, and the government sought forfeiture of his property. The defendant moved to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search of his home conducted after federal agents obtained consent from his brother, who was present at the residence. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the motion and ordered all evidence from the April 15, 2003 search suppressed. The court reasoned that the brother's consent was involuntary under the totality of circumstances, that he lacked apparent authority to consent to searches of closed containers within the home, and that the subsequent consent from the defendant's wife was tainted by the initial unlawful search.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Covenant Media's lawsuit against the City of Des Plaines over the denial of a permit to erect a billboard at 911 E. Touhy Avenue, challenging the city's sign ordinance under federal and state highway advertising laws and local zoning rules. The court had previously granted summary judgment to the City but, on reconsideration, acknowledged a factual error regarding the property's zoning at the time of the application. It vacated that judgment on the 911 E. Touhy claim because, although the site was commercially zoned when the application was filed, 1959 zoning maps and the Illinois Highway Advertising Control Act (implementing the federal Highway Beautification Act) might have required denial, yet evidence showed the city and IDOT had approved similar billboards nearby. The motion was denied as to attorneys' fees and the case was set for trial on the remaining issues.

business & regulatoryfree speechpropertyprocedure