The case involves plaintiff Michael Tillman, who was exonerated after serving nearly 24 years in prison for a 1986 rape and murder, suing Chicago police officers, supervisors including Jon Burge, prosecutors, city officials, and the City of Chicago. Tillman alleges coercive interrogation, suppression of evidence of torture at Area 2, conspiracy to deprive him of a fair trial, and related state-law claims such as false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, primarily under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 along with §§ 1985 and 1986. The defendants filed multiple motions to dismiss these claims on grounds including absolute prosecutorial immunity, failure to state a claim, and other defenses. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing certain claims like some IIED allegations while allowing others to proceed based on the allegations of investigative misconduct and notice of conspiracy claims.
This case involved a teacher, Candace Harbaugh, who sued the Chicago Board of Education after her termination, claiming she had attained tenure under the Illinois Tenure Act following four years of service and was therefore entitled to notice and a hearing. She also asserted violations of federal and state due process protections and sought reinstatement with back pay and benefits. The court granted summary judgment to the Board, concluding that Harbaugh's first year as a full-time basis substitute teacher did not count toward the statutory probationary period for tenure because she was not then classified as a probationary employee. The core reasoning was that the Tenure Act applies only to probationary employees serving as full-time teachers, and the Board's later reclassification of FTB substitutes as probationary appointed teachers meant Harbaugh had not completed the required four consecutive years by the time of her termination.
In this case, Dr. Constantine Frantzides and his Chicago Institute of Minimally Invasive Surgery sued Northshore University HealthSystem, its faculty practice group, a physician, and a collections agency after his separation from the practice. The claims included alleged violations of the Sherman Act sections 1 and 2 for restraint of trade and monopolization, plus state-law claims for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, conspiracy, and violation of the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, based on allegations that defendants misrepresented collection actions to patients, harassed referring physicians, denied surgical privileges, and otherwise harmed his ability to compete in laparoscopic surgery services. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss all counts without prejudice, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead an antitrust injury, a relevant market, or defendants' market power for the federal claims. The state-law claims were dismissed as pendant claims after the federal claims were rejected.
Irshad Learning Center, a Muslim religious organization, purchased property in unincorporated DuPage County that had previously operated as a private school under a conditional use permit and applied for a similar permit to use the site for religious services and educational programs. County officials denied the application after public hearings and review by the Zoning Board of Appeals and County Board. Irshad sued the county and multiple officials, alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution, Illinois Constitution, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The court granted the motion to dismiss all individual-capacity claims, dismissed two counts for failure to state a claim, struck one count, and denied the motion as to the remaining claims, allowing them to proceed based on the sufficiency of the pleaded allegations under RLUIPA and constitutional standards.
In Geimer v. Bank of America, plaintiff Lori Geimer sued the bank after discovering unauthorized electronic transfers totaling over $50,000 from her checking and credit accounts in 2008, alleging the bank failed to investigate or recover the funds. The case involved state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty under the Illinois Fiduciary Obligations Act, negligence, and breach of contract, after an Electronic Fund Transfer Act claim was withdrawn due to its one-year statute of limitations. The court granted the bank's motion to dismiss the fiduciary duty claim but denied it as to the negligence and contract claims. It reasoned that the EFTA does not preempt the state claims because those laws can afford greater consumer protections and have longer statutes of limitations, that no fiduciary relationship existed to support Count I, and that the remaining counts adequately alleged duty, breach, and damages under Illinois law.
The case concerns claims against GreatBanc, trustee of the Tribune Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), arising from the ESOP's April 2007 purchase of $250 million in Tribune Company stock financed by a promissory note as part of a leveraged going-private transaction. The court had previously granted summary judgment finding that GreatBanc breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA by approving a prohibited transaction, after which Tribune entered bankruptcy and the stock became worthless. Defendant moved for partial summary judgment to cap damages at the $2.8 million principal or $15.3 million total cash paid on the note in 2008, but the court denied the motion, holding that the full indebtedness constituted actual consideration with concrete financial implications for employee benefits and that liability was not limited to cash payments made.
.jpg?width=900)