The case concerned whether attorney Cynthia Miller's pre-petition legal services to debtor Juvenal Garcia, including efforts related to foreclosures and debt restructuring, were rendered "in contemplation of" bankruptcy and thus subject to fee review and potential disgorgement under 11 U.S.C. § 329. The bankruptcy court ruled that Miller was not subject to the statute because she was not Garcia's bankruptcy counsel and had not knowingly assisted with the filing. On appeal, the district court vacated that order and remanded the case, holding that the proper test is a subjective inquiry into the debtor's state of mind—specifically whether the services were provided when bankruptcy was contemplated or imminent, regardless of whether the attorney handled the bankruptcy itself. The court emphasized that services aimed at avoiding bankruptcy can still fall within the statute's scope if they bear more than a casual connection to the filing.
This case concerned Cuban-origin warehouse workers who sued Walmart alleging national origin, race, and ethnicity discrimination as well as retaliation under Title VII and Section 1981, on behalf of themselves and a putative class. The court granted in part Walmart's motion to dismiss, throwing out the class claims in Counts I-III for failing to meet Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards, being time-barred, and exceeding the scope of the plaintiffs' EEOC charges that alleged only national origin disparate treatment. It also dismissed some individual claims on timeliness and scope grounds but denied dismissal of the Section 1981 claim in Count III, holding that the plaintiffs' allegations of ethnic characteristics such as dark hair, eyes, and skin sufficiently stated a race discrimination claim.
The case involved a thirteen-year-old Canadian plaintiff who sued the Board of Education of Lake Forest Community High School District 115 and three individual employees after sustaining spinal injuries from diving into a pool as instructed during a school swimming program. The defendants moved to dismiss the nine-count complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), claiming immunity from liability under the Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act for discretionary policy decisions, recreational property use, and failure to supervise. The court denied the motion, holding that the school district owed a common-law duty of reasonable care to pool users and that the Act's immunities did not apply because the complaint plausibly alleged willful and wanton conduct. The court also rejected the argument that claims against the individual employees were duplicative of those against the district.
J & J Sports Productions held exclusive commercial distribution rights to the 2006 De La Hoya-Mayorga boxing program and sued the operators of Selena’s Sports Bar in Berwyn, Illinois, for intercepting and displaying the program to about 40 patrons without paying the $2,000 sublicense fee. The defendants largely failed to participate in discovery or respond to requests for admission, leading the court to deem key facts admitted, including that the display was willful and for financial gain. On summary judgment under Rule 56, the court found a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) and awarded $2,000 in statutory damages, $4,000 in enhanced damages for willfulness, and $4,981.25 in fees and costs, for a total of $10,981.25.
The case involved the Sentinel Liquidation Trust suing the Bank of New York Mellon over claims to avoid and recover fraudulent and preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code and Illinois law, as well as equitable subordination of the bank's claims. The bank filed counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that it held a valid first-priority perfected security interest in the disputed assets, along with breach of contract and indemnification. Following a bench trial and consideration of a summary judgment motion, the court reviewed undisputed facts about Sentinel's business as a futures commission merchant, its segregated customer accounts, regulatory filings, and letter agreements with the bank that prohibited liens on those accounts, then applied provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and Commodity Exchange Act to determine the validity and priority of the bank's interests.
This case is a patent infringement suit by inventor Jacob Krippelz against Ford Motor Company concerning puddle lamps installed on vehicles to light the ground beside them, specifically involving claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 5,017,903. A jury found for Krippelz and awarded $23 million in damages, after which the court added further damages for willful infringement and prejudgment interest. Ford moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, raising arguments about patent invalidity due to anticipation or obviousness from prior art and certain evidentiary rulings at trial. The court denied the motions, holding that the evidence provided a sufficient basis for the jury verdict under applicable standards and that Ford had not shown invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.
