Rudolph Thomas Randa

Charles G. Hatchett, a Wisconsin resident, sued state election officials and a local district attorney seeking to block enforcement of Wisconsin statutes §§ 11.23 and 11.30 and related rules against him. The laws impose political action committee registration, record-keeping, reporting, and source-identification requirements on individuals who spend modest sums advocating for or against local ballot referendums. The court granted Hatchett’s motion for summary judgment, declared the provisions unconstitutional as applied to his referendum advocacy, and permanently enjoined their enforcement against him while denying the defendants’ cross-motion. It reasoned that the requirements impose severe burdens on core First Amendment political speech by individuals and are not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest, following the earlier as-applied ruling in Swaffer v. Cane.

electionsfree speech

This case involved beneficiaries of an irrevocable family trust suing Wachovia Bank as trustee for allegedly breaching fiduciary duties under Wisconsin law by exchanging two whole life insurance policies held in the trust for two no-lapse policies issued by an affiliate, resulting in lost cash value but generating commissions for the bank and its affiliate. The plaintiffs sought recovery of the surrendered policies' cash value, the commissions, lost dividends, and fees. The court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment on the breach claims and denied the beneficiaries' motion for partial summary judgment seeking disgorgement of $512,000 in commissions. The decision rested on the conclusion that the claims were equitable in nature and that the trustee's actions did not violate its duties, including application of the prudent investor rule.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a patent infringement dispute where Generac Power Systems Inc. accused Kohler Co. of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,230,345 related to an exercise method for electrical generators and engaging in unfair competition. Kohler counterclaimed that the patent is invalid and unenforceable, and requested reexamination by the Patent and Trademark Office. The court granted Kohler's motion to stay the litigation pending the outcome of the reexaminations, finding that the case was at an early stage, a stay would simplify the issues, and it would not unduly prejudice Generac. The court denied Generac's request for a preliminary injunction because Generac failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved probationary Milwaukee police officer Melissa Ramskugler, who was terminated by the police chief during her 16-month probationary training period without a hearing or appeal before the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. She sued, claiming the termination violated due process by depriving her of a property interest in her job and seeking reinstatement, back pay, and a hearing. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied her requests, granted the defendants' motion, and dismissed the case. The core reasoning was that under the labor contract, department rules, and Wisconsin law, probationary officers have no legitimate expectation of continued employment and thus no protected property interest, making due process protections inapplicable and allowing termination without cause or hearing.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerned a Chapter 13 debtor who sought to strip off a wholly unsecured junior mortgage lien on her principal residence after receiving a Chapter 7 discharge four years earlier, which rendered her ineligible for a Chapter 13 discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(f)(1). The bankruptcy court dismissed the adversary proceeding against the lienholder, but the district court reversed, holding that the lien could be stripped off. The court reasoned that § 1322(b)(2) permits modification of the rights of holders of unsecured claims and that the antimodification exception applies only to claims that are at least partially secured under § 506(a); the lack of discharge eligibility does not alter this treatment of unsecured liens, though the plan must still satisfy the good-faith requirement of § 1325(a).

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a dispute between pharmaceutical companies Bayer Healthcare and Norbrook Laboratories over Norbrook's attempt to assert § 112 patent invalidity defenses and counterclaims. Norbrook moved for reconsideration of an order striking its expert reports and amended interrogatory responses on those issues, or alternatively for leave to amend its pleadings to add the defenses. The court denied reconsideration, finding that Norbrook's arguments under Rule 41 and about local motion procedures were new and could have been raised earlier, and did not show manifest legal error or new evidence. However, the court granted leave to amend under Rule 15(a), concluding there was no undue delay or prejudice, which made the previously stricken materials relevant again and vacated the striking order.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case was a civil rights lawsuit brought by a former city administrator against the city and several alderpersons, alleging that his termination violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights in continued employment and reputation, involved a conspiracy to injure him under state law, and breached his employment contract. On the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court dismissed the federal constitutional claims and the state conspiracy claim but allowed the breach of contract claim to proceed to further proceedings. The core reasoning centered on the absence of a genuine issue of material fact supporting the due process violations or conspiracy, while material factual disputes remained regarding whether the contract required cause for termination and payment of certain benefits.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Maxine Mattek sued to rescind her 2007 mortgage loan originated by EquiFirst and to recover damages, alleging that EquiFirst violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) by providing only one copy of the required notice of the right to cancel instead of two. Defendant Deutsche Bank, as assignee of the loan, moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the rescission claim was barred by the three-year statute of repose in 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) because notice was not given to the assignee within that period. The court denied the motion, holding that notice of rescission timely given to the original creditor is effective against subsequent assignees and that Mattek had alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible TILA claim for rescission of a loan secured by her primary residence. The decision rested on the statutory text of TILA and Regulation Z, prior district court interpretations, and the principle that assignees step into the shoes of the original creditor for rescission purposes.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case concerns a consolidated federal action arising from a partially completed mixed-use hotel and condominium development project in downtown Milwaukee, involving disputes among limited partners, the general partner, architects, and construction managers over contracts, payments, and alleged fund diversions. The court addressed three pending motions for summary judgment, including one by the Economou Defendants seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' damages claims on the ground that a Pierringer release executed in settlement with the DOC Parties barred further claims. Applying the standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the court reviewed the undisputed facts regarding the project's partnership structure, the AIA-form agreements, the filing of the lawsuit, and the 2009 settlement release, while noting certain remaining factual disputes such as the source and characterization of additional equity contributions.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved Edward E. Gillen Company seeking insurance coverage from Lexington Insurance Company and others for an arbitration award stemming from property damage during a construction project. Lexington moved to dismiss or stay the federal action in favor of arbitration under a clause in its policy, while Gillen sought to enjoin the arbitration. The court denied Lexington's motion and granted the injunction, reasoning that Wisconsin statutes require insurance policy forms containing mandatory arbitration provisions to be filed and approved by the state insurance commissioner, that chapter 631 applies to all policies delivered or issued in the state including those from surplus lines insurers absent specific exemption, and that Lexington's unapproved form rendered the arbitration clause unenforceable.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Julie Marie Palmer, who owns a boat marina business, appealed the bankruptcy court's denial of her motion to extend the automatic stay in her second small business chapter 11 bankruptcy case after her first such case had been dismissed for failure to confirm a reorganization plan within the required timeframe. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) did not apply to the second case. Under § 362(n)(1)(B), the stay is inapplicable because Palmer was a debtor in a small business case dismissed by a final order within the two-year period before the second petition. The exception in § 362(n)(2) for petitions resulting from unforeseeable circumstances beyond the debtor's control does not apply, as that provision refers to a separate case that is still pending at the time of the new filing rather than a previously dismissed one.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a patent infringement action in which Bayer Healthcare moved to strike expert reports and amended interrogatory responses from Norbrook Laboratories concerning invalidity defenses under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112. Norbrook had initially included a broad invalidity claim in its answer, then removed the § 112 enablement defense after Bayer represented that only two patent claims remained at issue, and its discovery responses addressed only prior art and obviousness. The court granted the motion to strike materials relating to the § 112 defense because Norbrook had expressly abandoned it in amended pleadings, but denied the motion as to new prior art and anticipation defenses because fact discovery remained open. The core reasoning focused on Norbrook's prior representations during pleading amendments and the procedural timing of discovery.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Alloc and related companies against Pergo over mechanically locking laminate flooring products, asserting multiple patents including the RE '439, '267, '907, '410, and '579 patents that claim priority to an earlier application. Pergo moved for summary judgment of non-infringement, arguing that its accused products lack the 'play' required by the patent claims either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The court applied the standard for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, considering expert testimony from Alloc's witness and prior administrative and judicial rulings on the patents. It concluded that Alloc could not prove infringement as a matter of law due to the absence of play in the products, leading to dismissal of the infringement claims with prejudice and entry of judgment for Pergo.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a labor dispute following Republic Airways Holdings' 2009 acquisition of Midwest Airlines, in which a committee of former Midwest flight attendants sought a declaratory judgment that the McCaskill-Bond Amendment requires fair seniority integration with Republic's flight attendants represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on whether the transaction qualified as a covered transaction under the Amendment that combined crafts or classes subject to the Railway Labor Act. The court denied both motions, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the purpose of the transaction to combine air carriers into a single entity, even though the National Mediation Board had determined the flight attendants now formed a single craft or class. The ruling turned on unresolved factual questions about the intent and structure of the acquisition rather than purely legal interpretations of the statute.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a dispute over a $20.9 million construction loan agreement for a Milwaukee hotel and condominium development, where Icelandic companies that invested equity in the project sued the Georgia-based lender Specialty Finance Group after multiple default notices, forbearance agreements, and alleged threats of foreclosure. The plaintiffs sought remand to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), arguing the federal court lacked diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000 and because the state court had already asserted jurisdiction over the property. The court reviewed the complaint allegations regarding the plaintiffs' advances totaling over $17 million and the promissory estoppel and related claims, concluding that the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied in light of the figures involved. It therefore addressed the remand motion along with other procedural requests, granting extensions for amended pleadings and responses to a motion to dismiss while denying substitution and stay motions.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

Shannon Wheeler sued her former employer Brady Corporation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices, and constructive discharge. Brady moved for summary judgment to dismiss the entire action. The court set forth the Rule 56 standards, requiring the movant to show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, while viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and disregarding unsupported or conclusory assertions.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved plaintiff Alfred Carl Faraca suing defendant Fleet 1 Logistics, LLC, for failing to pay amounts due under a July 2008 Contract Hauling Agreement, with claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, account stated, prejudgment interest, violation of the federal Truth-in-Leasing Act (49 U.S.C. § 14102 and related regulations), and attorney's fees. After the defendant failed to answer or respond following proper service, the clerk entered default, and the court granted the plaintiff's motion for default judgment. The court reasoned that the default was properly established with no indication of excusable neglect or mistake, liability on all claims was therefore established as a matter of law, and the requested damages of $10,467.34 were supported by documentary evidence in the complaint, along with prejudgment interest at the prime rate, reduced attorney's fees, and costs. The total judgment awarded was $16,497.76, plus post-judgment interest, and the action was dismissed with prejudice.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Brio Corp., a Wisconsin-based toy distributor, and Meccano S.N., a French manufacturer, over the 2005 termination of their 2001 exclusive U.S. distribution agreement for Erector brand toys. Brio sued in Wisconsin state court under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (WFDL), claiming improper termination without good cause or proper notice, and seeking repurchase of its inventory at fair market value, plus claims based on alleged oral promises. Meccano removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds and moved for summary judgment, arguing Brio was not a protected dealer under the WFDL due to lack of a Wisconsin "community of interest" and that any remaining claims should be dismissed under the agreement's French forum-selection clause. The court denied the motion, holding that disputed facts on the WFDL's ten community-of-interest factors (including Brio's investments in marketing, inventory, and U.S. market development) created triable issues, and that the WFDL claim therefore survived to preclude immediate dismissal for venue.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Tate v. Troutman, pro se plaintiff Charlie Tate, Jr., an inmate at the Milwaukee County Jail, sued defendants Dr. Troutman, RN John P. Riegert, and Sergeant Hale under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care after two incidents in January and February 2006 involving a fall in his cell and injuries from an automobile accident and beating. Default judgment had already been entered on liability, and this decision addresses the amount of damages following a hearing where Tate presented testimony and evidence seeking over $9 million in compensatory and punitive damages for lost earnings, pain and suffering, and medical costs. The court made factual findings regarding Tate's pre-incident health and employment, his claimed injuries including migraines, nerve damage, and exacerbated back conditions, and the defendants' involvement, while noting issues such as the lack of evidence linking specific defendants to the inadequate treatment and potential limits on personal involvement for compensatory damages. The core reasoning focused on evaluating the connection between the defendants' actions or omissions and Tate's alleged harms under Eighth Amendment standards, drawing on precedents like Black v. Lane to assess liability for damages.

civil rightscriminal lawhealthcareprocedure

The case involved Wells Fargo Bank suing the Lake of the Torches Economic Development Corporation, a tribal entity operating a casino, for alleged breach of a Trust Indenture agreement related to $46 million in bonds issued to refinance casino debt and fund another project. Wells Fargo claimed the corporation failed to provide required documentation after a large fund transfer and sought appointment of a receiver. The court dismissed the case, holding that the Trust Indenture constituted a management contract under Indian gaming regulations because it granted the trustee extensive oversight and control over casino revenues and operations. Since the contract lacked required prior approval from the National Indian Gaming Commission, it was deemed void from the outset, preventing enforcement of its terms.

business & regulatoryfederal power