Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

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.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

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.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

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.

religious libertycivil rightsproperty

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.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

George Ryan, former Governor of Illinois, was convicted in 2006 of racketeering, mail fraud (including honest services fraud), false statements to the FBI, and tax violations arising from a scheme to use state resources for personal benefit. After the Supreme Court in Skilling v. United States limited honest services mail fraud to cases involving bribes or kickbacks, Ryan filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition seeking to vacate his mail fraud and RICO convictions and release on bail. The district court denied the petition and the bail request, holding that the jury instructions and evidence remained valid because they involved bribes, kickbacks, and pecuniary loss to the state rather than solely intangible rights to honest services.

criminal law

This case involves participants in Tribune Company's Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) suing GreatBanc, the plan's fiduciary, for breaching its duties under ERISA. Plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment on their claim that GreatBanc approved the ESOP's purchase of 8.9 million unregistered Tribune shares in 2007, which was financed by a $250 million promissory note and subject to transfer restrictions, constituting a prohibited transaction. The court granted the motion, holding that the shares did not qualify as 'employer securities' under ERISA because they failed to meet the Internal Revenue Code's requirement (via cross-references in ERISA §§ 407 and 408) that they be common stock readily tradable on an established securities market. The ruling rejected GreatBanc's arguments regarding regulatory interpretation, the need for discovery on industry practices, and joinder of Tribune amid its bankruptcy, emphasizing that the legal definition controlled over any contrary practices or opinions.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Restricted Spending Solutions LLC, assignee of the '360 Patent describing a system for allocating funds to pre-established accounts with controls set by the fund provider (such as a parent or employer) on what designated cardholders may purchase and providing an accounting of expenditures, suing credit-card companies and financial institutions for infringement through their "teen cards" and "corporate cards." Defendants moved for summary judgment of invalidity, arguing that the relevant claims were anticipated by an earlier VISA patent. The court granted the motion, holding that the '360 Patent claims were anticipated by the prior art in VISA's '513 Patent, which disclosed a nearly identical system allowing periodic funding of accounts and placement of purchase restrictions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a pension fund and its trustee seeking to collect withdrawal liability under ERISA from a defunct company, SCOFBP, and related entities after SCOFBP ceased operations and contributions in 2001. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether MCOF and MCRI were under common control with SCOFBP through owner Michael Cappy and his bankruptcy estate. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that the entities were under common control based on ownership interests held by Cappy personally, through family trusts he controlled, and via his bankruptcy estate, making the companies jointly and severally liable. The decision turned on ERISA's definitions of common control rather than day-to-day management decisions.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Moore v. Watson, former faculty advisor Dr. Gerian Steven Moore and former student editor George Providence II sued Chicago State University officials, alleging that Moore's termination and interference with the student newspaper Tempo violated the First Amendment and the Illinois College Campus Press Act. Plaintiffs claimed the actions were retaliation for Tempo's publication of articles critical of the University, which disrupted operations and halted publication; defendants maintained that Moore's firing was based on performance issues unrelated to the newspaper's content. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied plaintiffs' motion in full and denied defendants' motion in part, finding genuine issues of material fact that must be resolved at trial rather than on the existing record.

free speechcivil rights

This case involved custodians employed by R.J.B. Properties, Inc. who sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act, claiming that the employer improperly excluded a health benefit allowance from their regular pay rate when calculating overtime compensation. After the plaintiffs withdrew two other counts following discovery, the court granted summary judgment in their favor on the remaining claim, finding that the directly paid health allowance must be included in the overtime rate under the FLSA. In this opinion, the court addressed the plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs as prevailing parties under the statute, applying the lodestar method to determine a reasonable fee amount while addressing objections regarding billing practices and union involvement. The court awarded $110,005.52 in attorneys' fees and $460 in costs, reducing the request slightly for two hours of time that could not be verified as necessary to the litigation.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a Macedonian native who applied for U.S. citizenship in 2008 and was interviewed by USCIS in April 2009. After more than 120 days passed without a decision, the plaintiff filed suit in federal district court under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) seeking relief for the agency's delay. USCIS then scheduled and conducted a second interview, which the plaintiff declined to participate in, and issued a denial of the application days later. The court held that the filing of the § 1447(b) action vested exclusive jurisdiction in the district court, rendering the agency's subsequent denial void. It remanded the matter to USCIS for a merits determination rather than adjudicating the application itself.

immigrationprocedurefederal power

This case involved Abbott Laboratories, owner of a patent for an obesity treatment drug marketed as Meridia, and Apotex, a generic drug manufacturer seeking FDA approval via an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Apotex filed a paragraph IV certification asserting that Abbott's patent was invalid or not infringed, followed by a detailed paragraph IV letter, which prompted Abbott to sue for patent infringement and trigger a 30-month delay on FDA approval. Abbott moved to require Apotex to submit a new paragraph IV letter or to strike affirmative defenses and counterclaims that raised additional invalidity and noninfringement theories not mentioned in the original letter. The court denied the motion, holding that Apotex was not limited to the specific theories in its paragraph IV letter, consistent with Federal Circuit precedent and district court rulings allowing broader defenses in litigation.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

In Pryor v. City of Chicago, plaintiff Ulysses Pryor sued Chicago police officers Edward McGovern and Todd Reykjalin for allegedly wrongfully detaining and injuring him in March 2006. To oppose the officers' summary judgment motion on the issue of their identity, Pryor relied on a declaration from retired attorney Joan Sorensen linking the officers to a specific patrol car number via a FOIA response. The court granted the defendants' motion to strike Sorensen's declaration and supporting documents in full and permitted renewal of the summary judgment motion, reasoning that the declaration failed to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, was not based on Sorensen's personal knowledge (as she had not drafted it, reviewed records, or verified the facts), and was prepared by plaintiff's counsel using unauthenticated materials.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved customers of an online ticket options marketplace who alleged they were defrauded by other users selling nonexistent options for the 2009 Super Bowl and sued the site operator for breach of contract, warranties, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, claiming the operator failed to ensure transaction security despite its promises. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were barred by provisions in the site's user agreement, including forum selection clauses, liability limitations, and disclaimers. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that certain contract and fraud claims were precluded by the agreement's terms or failed to state a claim, while the consumer fraud claim could proceed because it does not require proof of reliance on contractual promises and the alleged misrepresentations about site security were sufficiently pleaded.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

Ernesto Maldonado sued Mount Sinai Hospital and its staff under the Federal Tort Claims Act after a bacterial spinal infection was improperly treated, resulting in his permanent near-total paralysis from the waist down. The government conceded liability and substituted as defendant, leaving only the amount of damages to be determined in a bench trial. The court awarded Maldonado $8,330,182 in compensatory damages based on evidence of his lost wages, ongoing medical and daily living needs, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, while offsetting the award by the amount of his prior settlement with other defendants to prevent double recovery.

torts & liabilityhealthcarefederal power

David Adams, an accountant employed by the City of Chicago from 1999 to 2005, sued the City claiming he was subjected to a hostile work environment, discipline, and termination because of his HIV infection, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or alternatively in retaliation for filing a disability discrimination charge. The City moved for summary judgment, asserting that decision-makers were unaware of Adams's medical condition, that there was no evidence of a hostile environment, and that his discharge resulted from performance and attitude issues. The district court granted the motion, finding insufficient evidence to support the hostile environment claim or to show that supervisors knew of Adams's HIV status when disciplining or terminating him. The court also concluded that the termination decision was based on legitimate work performance concerns and that Adams failed to establish a causal link to his earlier discrimination charge.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Neil v. Zell, current and former Tribune Company employees who participated in the company's Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) sued the plan's trustee GreatBanc, company directors, and Samuel Zell over a 2007 leveraged transaction that converted Tribune from a public company to one wholly owned by the ESOP, financed with $8.3 billion in new debt. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants breached ERISA fiduciary duties by imprudently approving the heavily indebted deal and engaged in prohibited transactions by causing the ESOP to pay too much for non-marketable shares and relinquish voting rights. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, allowing only the fiduciary breach claim against GreatBanc and the knowing participation claims against Zell and EGI-TRB to proceed, along with specific allegations that GreatBanc improperly agreed to direct and indirect stock purchases and the Investor Rights Agreement, on the basis that these claims sufficiently stated violations under ERISA.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved former employees Yasant and Prafulla Thakkar, who are of Indian descent and Hindu, suing their employer Station Operators Inc., ExxonMobil, and a supervisor for discrimination based on age, race, national origin, and religion under Title VII, Section 1981, and the ADEA, along with state claims of retaliatory discharge and tortious interference. The claims stemmed from the couple's termination after they transferred windshield wiper fluid between stations in alleged violation of company policy, which they claimed had been authorized by their supervisor who then denied it. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, while also granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record with new evidence. The core reasoning examined whether genuine issues of material fact existed on the discrimination and retaliation claims, including evidence of complaints about the supervisor, the circumstances of the termination, and comparisons to other employees, leading to dismissal of some claims for lack of supporting evidence while allowing others to proceed.

civil rightslabor & employment