Michael Joseph Reagan

This case involves an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by African-American employees, including Marvin Wright, against Casino Queen, Inc., alleging racial discrimination, harassment, and a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, along with related state claims. The court addressed the defendant's motion for summary judgment specifically as to plaintiff Marvin Wright, who asserted claims of race discrimination and hostile work environment. The court denied the motion, concluding that Wright presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact on both claims, including testimony about disparate treatment, discipline, and a pervasive racially hostile environment supported by human resources directors' statements. The ruling noted that disputed facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and that the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to find discriminatory motivation.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this employment discrimination case, plaintiff Lawrence Burton, an African-American bartender employed by defendant Casino Queen since 1995, sued under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 alleging racial discrimination, harassment, and a hostile work environment based on differential treatment in discipline, scheduling, promotions, and supervisor interactions compared to white employees. The Casino Queen moved for summary judgment, arguing insufficient evidence of discrimination or a hostile environment and asserting the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding discriminatory treatment and the effectiveness of the employer's anti-harassment policy due to employee fears of retaliation, while deferring any decision on severance.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case is a putative class action brought by Walsh Chiropractic against StrataCare alleging improper application of PPO discounts through breach of contract, unjust enrichment, violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and RICO. StrataCare removed the case from state court to federal court, and the court first confirmed subject matter jurisdiction based on the federal RICO claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction, as well as diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. On the motion to dismiss, the court analyzed the RICO claim and determined that repeated instances of allegedly misleading billing over time could satisfy the pattern of racketeering activity requirement for a closed-ended scheme. The opinion also recited the elements of an ICFA claim in the context of silent PPO arrangements.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedurehealthcare

The case involved an appeal from a bankruptcy court order in an adversary proceeding where Globaleyes Telecommunications, Inc. sued Verizon North, Inc. over alleged overbilling under interconnection agreements governing telecommunications facilities, seeking damages for pre-petition state law claims and objecting to a proof of claim for unpaid charges. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal of two state law counts for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and its grant of summary judgment to Verizon on the remaining count objecting to the claim. The court reasoned that bankruptcy jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 does not extend to pre-petition state law disputes, that the terms of the applicable interconnection agreements did not allow the claimed reductions or adjustments to charges, and that Globaleyes had not timely raised billing disputes as required by the contracts.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This ERISA case under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a) arose from the denial of coverage for neurorehabilitative treatment at a specialized facility following the plaintiff's brain injury in a 2006 car accident; after the parties settled the benefits claim at a conference, the only remaining issue was the amount of attorney fees. The plaintiff sought $62,542.15 in fees for work by multiple attorneys, including an out-of-state lawyer who provided services pro bono and was not admitted to the court, while the defendant proposed roughly half that amount. The court reviewed billing records, hourly rates, hours worked, and local rules on admission and pro hac vice practice, then awarded a reduced fee amount after excluding or adjusting charges for non-admitted counsel, pro bono efforts, unnecessary staffing, and unrelated expenses.

healthcarelabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a putative class action by plaintiff Quinten Spivey against defendant Adaptive Marketing, LLC, alleging that Adaptive improperly charged his credit card for a year-long membership program without his authorization after he called a telemarketer to purchase an Atkins diet product. Spivey brought claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment under Illinois law in federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. The court granted Adaptive's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action with prejudice. It applied the standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, requiring the non-moving party to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact, and found that Spivey had not done so. The court also addressed procedural matters including jurisdiction, venue, and the lack of need for Rule 23(e) notice prior to dismissal of the uncertified class claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Gay v. Chandra, an inmate at Tamms Correctional Center sued psychiatrist Dr. Rakesh Chandra under the Eighth Amendment, claiming that the doctor subjected him to excessively cold cell temperatures, prolonged physical restraints without food or clothing (including on a metal bed and while holding a metal object), and denied medication for his self-mutilation compulsion between January and July 2004. The court granted in part and denied in part the doctor's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the portions of the conditions-of-confinement claim based on the use of restraints generally or without a mattress, while allowing the remaining conditions claims and the deliberate-indifference-to-mental-health-needs claim to proceed to trial. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the doctor violated the inmate's constitutional rights and concluded that those rights were clearly established, precluding qualified immunity at this stage. Damages issues were reserved for later determination.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case concerned whether Chapter 7 debtors could exempt earned but unpaid wages from their bankruptcy estate by invoking the Federal Wage Garnishment Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1673. The bankruptcy court sustained the trustee’s objection and disallowed the exemption. On appeal, the district court reviewed the legal issue de novo and affirmed, holding that once a bankruptcy petition is filed, exemption rights are determined solely by 11 U.S.C. § 522 and related state or federal exemption statutes, not by the garnishment limitations in § 1673. The court rejected arguments that the wage-garnishment statute independently created an exemption or that disallowing it violated federal law.

propertyprocedurefederal power

This case involved Dawn Kay-Woods suing Minnesota Life Insurance Company for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay under an accidental death insurance policy that would have covered the couple's home mortgage after her husband Brian died in a single-vehicle accident. The policy excluded benefits if the death resulted from the insured's commission of a felony. The court granted the insurer's renewed motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact. It held that Brian was committing a Class 4 felony under Illinois law by driving under the influence while his license was revoked due to a prior DUI, and that the policy language was unambiguous so the exclusion applied without requiring a criminal conviction.

business & regulatoryprocedurecriminal law

This case involved a labor union's lawsuit against a telephone company under the Federal Arbitration Act and Labor Management Relations Act, seeking to enforce an arbitrator's award that prohibited the transfer of bargaining unit work from an Illinois network operations center to a Texas facility in violation of the parties' collective bargaining agreement. After the court granted summary judgment to the union and ordered the company to cease the transfers, the union moved for contempt sanctions when the company continued the practice. The court found the company in civil contempt by clear and convincing evidence, determining that the July 14 order set forth a specific command that the company knowingly violated by persisting in the work transfers for months afterward. The court focused first on civil remedies to compel compliance before considering any criminal sanctions and directed the union to propose appropriate sanctions and fees.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Loch v. Board of Education of Edwardsville, the plaintiffs (parents Thomas and Glenna Loch and their daughter Kayla) sued the school district under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and related federal statutes. They challenged the district's determination that Kayla, who had Type 1 diabetes along with anxiety and depression diagnoses, was ineligible for special education services, alleged procedural violations in the evaluation process, and sought reimbursement for her unilateral placement at a community college. After a due process hearing, an impartial hearing officer ruled entirely in favor of the district on eligibility, procedural compliance, and reimbursement. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court reviewed the administrative record and granted judgment to the district, finding that Kayla did not meet the criteria for a child with a disability requiring special education, that prior written notice requirements were satisfied, and that no violations supported the parents' claims. The court applied the standard of review requiring deference to the hearing officer's findings absent contrary evidence in the record.

civil rightsprocedure

Plaintiff Lisa Rittenhouse, a law student with ADHD, dyslexia, and bipolar disorder, sued Southern Illinois University, its Board of Trustees, the School of Law, and Dean Peter Alexander under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act after her petition for readmission was denied following insufficient grades, while other students (including racial minorities without disabilities) had their petitions granted after alleged grade adjustments. On defendants' motion to dismiss, the court held that the School of Law is not a suable entity separate from the Board and dismissed claims against it and two individual defendants. The court dismissed the § 1981, § 1983, and ADA claims against the Board on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity grounds but permitted the claims to proceed against Alexander in his official capacity for injunctive relief only; it allowed the Rehabilitation Act claim against the Board to go forward (without punitive damages) because the state waived immunity by accepting federal funds.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

In United States v. Kimoto, the defendant was charged with conspiracy, mail fraud, and wire fraud for a telemarketing scheme in which consumers paid advance fees expecting pre-approved credit cards but instead received debit card applications or unusable plastic cards, with additional misrepresentations about credit improvement and obstacles to refunds. A jury convicted Kimoto on all counts after a ten-day trial. The court denied his post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal or a new trial, holding that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the government was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt and that the verdict was consistent with the manifest weight of the evidence without prejudicial trial errors warranting retrial.

criminal law

This case involves Cincinnati Insurance seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Taylor-Morley, Inc. in a state court lawsuit filed by homeowners alleging breach of contract and misrepresentations regarding a real estate development that failed to include a promised golf course. The federal district court, applying Illinois law after a choice-of-law analysis, granted summary judgment to Cincinnati. The court reasoned that the underlying complaint did not allege an "occurrence" or covered damages under the commercial general liability policies, and various exclusions applied, thus relieving the insurer of any obligation to defend or indemnify.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case was a personal injury negligence action in which plaintiff Cathryn Jaeger alleged that defendants Clear Wing Productions and Event Resources negligently positioned extension cords and wires at a concert, causing her to trip and sustain injuries. Defendant Event Resources moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Jaeger, as a Chapter 13 bankruptcy debtor who had not disclosed the claim in her bankruptcy filings, either lacked standing to pursue the action or was judicially estopped from doing so. The court denied the motion, explaining that the injury occurred after the bankruptcy petition was filed, that amended plans were submitted afterward without disclosure, and that questions remained regarding whether Jaeger or the bankruptcy trustee should proceed with the case. The court directed that the bankruptcy trustee be notified and given an opportunity to participate.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Buller Trucking Co. suing its insurer in Illinois state court over denial of a $35,000 cargo loss claim, asserting breach of contract, vexatious delay, consumer fraud, and common-law fraud. After the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to add nationwide class claims, the state court granted the amendment on February 18, 2005, the effective date of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The defendant removed the action to federal court under CAFA's minimal diversity and amount-in-controversy provisions for class actions. The district court held that federal subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking because the suit had commenced before CAFA applied in a way that permitted removal, and therefore remanded the case to state court.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a proposed class action by Betty Buller, owner of Buller Trucking Co., against an insurance provider after denial of a $35,000 cargo loss claim under a refrigeration breakdown endorsement in the policy; Buller alleged breach of contract, vexatious delay, and consumer fraud, claiming the coverage was illusory and challenging claims practices, while seeking certification of nationwide plaintiff and defendant classes. The action, filed in Illinois state court, was removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) based on minimal diversity and amount in controversy. After the Seventh Circuit vacated an initial remand order, Buller moved for voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The court granted the motion after confirming federal subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA and determining that dismissal would not prejudice absent class members due to a parallel pending action. The case and counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a putative class action brought by participants in Dynegy's employer-sponsored retirement plans against plan fiduciaries under ERISA sections 409 and 502, alleging that the fiduciaries breached their duties by failing to divest the plans of Dynegy stock after learning it was inflated by undisclosed accounting improprieties and by making false or misleading statements to participants about the plans. The stock's value dropped sharply after the issues became public in 2002, causing losses to the plans. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), arguing among other things that the claims sought individual rather than plan-wide relief, that certain actions were protected by the settlor doctrine, that the misrepresentation allegations lacked particularity, and that some defendants were not fiduciaries. The court denied the motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) in their entirety and denied the Rule 9(b) motions except to the extent they targeted allegations of affirmative misrepresentations, which were dismissed without prejudice with leave to replead with greater specificity within 21 days.

labor & employmentprocedure

In United States v. Zambrana, the defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine after a traffic stop by Officer Reichert led to a vehicle search revealing the drugs. The district court initially granted in part a suppression motion, finding probable cause for the stop but no reasonable suspicion for extending the detention for a canine sniff, and suppressed the resulting evidence and statements. On remand from the Seventh Circuit, which vacated the suppression order, the district court clarified that its prior analysis had in fact considered the totality of the circumstances rather than isolated factors, while providing more detailed findings on the officer's credibility issues, including inconsistencies in testimony about vehicle damage and the officer's separate criminal investigation. The court emphasized that its original conclusion rested on an overall evaluation of the stop circumstances, the officer's experience, and the defendant's behavior.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Carlos Rosas sued his former employer BB Holdings and supervisor Sherrod Leftwich in Illinois state court for retaliatory discharge after pursuing a workers’ compensation claim, along with related punitive damages counts. Defendants removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds, leading to motions addressing whether the in-state supervisor was fraudulently joined and whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that Leftwich was fraudulently joined because Illinois retaliatory discharge claims may be brought only against the employer, not individual supervisors, and that a proposed amendment adding an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Leftwich failed to allege sufficiently severe distress. As a result, the court dismissed Leftwich, confirmed diversity jurisdiction, denied remand, denied leave to amend, and denied the plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability