James Block Zagel

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute between RNA Corporation, a contract manufacturer, and Procter & Gamble over alleged infringement of P&G's trademarks, trade dress, and design patents for Herbal Essences shampoo and conditioner products. RNA sold similar private-label hydrating herbal shampoo and conditioner to Family Dollar, leading P&G to file suit in Ohio; after dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, RNA sought declaratory relief in Illinois, where P&G asserted counterclaims. The parties agreed to a permanent injunction and a special damage resolution process in which the court would decide any damages based on written submissions without a trial. The court awarded no damages or attorneys' fees to either side, reasoning that the evidence was insufficient to establish infringement liability or the absence thereof, leaving no prevailing party under the Lanham Act or other statutes, and that equitable factors did not support additional relief.

business & regulatory

This case involved a patent infringement suit by Eazypower against Jore over Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 4,876,929, which covers a portable screwdriver with a flexible extension shaft using concentric coil springs; the patent has since expired. Jore moved for summary judgment of invalidity, arguing that the claims were anticipated by a prior art tool called the FB-19, which it claimed had been sold in the United States before the patent's filing. The court denied the motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact on whether the FB-19 was publicly sold or imported into the U.S. more than one year before the patent application, based on conflicting testimonial evidence, lack of import records, and questions about the age and origin of physical specimens and packaging.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a motion by press organizations to intervene in the criminal trial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and obtain immediate public access to the names of jurors, rather than waiting until after the verdict. The court denied the motion after holding a hearing, maintaining the order that withheld juror names during the trial. The reasoning centered on the high level of media attention and public interest in the case, which created a risk that jurors could face outside contacts capable of influencing their decisions and undermining the defendants' right to a fair trial. The court considered alternatives such as sequestration or limited disclosure agreements but found them either more burdensome or ineffective at protecting the jury.

criminal lawfree speechprocedure

This case arose from BP's admitted 2004 scheme to manipulate TET propane prices by purchasing excess supply to create artificial shortages, which temporarily raised prices before they collapsed, leading purchasers to sue for resulting damages. Plaintiffs brought claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act for monopolization and attempted monopolization, the Commodity Exchange Act, common law and statutory fraud, and unjust enrichment. The court granted in part and denied in part BP's motion to dismiss, specifically denying dismissal of the monopolization claim because plaintiffs adequately alleged monopoly power through anticompetitive conduct in the relevant market, while addressing pleading deficiencies in the fraud and attempted monopolization counts under Rule 9(b) and Twombly standards; it also denied cross-motions for summary judgment on the CEA claim due to factual disputes including on standing and tolling.

business & regulatorycriminal law

The case arose after BP America admitted in a Deferred Prosecution Agreement that its traders had manipulated the February 2004 TET propane market by buying excess supply to create artificial shortages and raise prices. Plaintiffs, direct purchasers of propane, sued BP under Section 2 of the Sherman Act for monopolization, the Commodity Exchange Act, and common-law and statutory fraud, seeking damages for paying inflated prices. On BP's motion to dismiss, the court applied the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards and examined whether the complaint sufficiently alleged monopoly power through direct or circumstantial evidence such as BP's 88% market share and control over pricing. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding some claims adequately pleaded while others, including certain fraud allegations, failed to meet particularity requirements.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute over responsibility for damages to a yacht chartered for races, with the plaintiff seeking a declaratory judgment that losses did not arise from the charter under an indemnification agreement. The defendants, based outside Illinois, moved to dismiss the case removed from state court, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the dismissal, finding that the defendants lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois, as the key agreements and events occurred primarily in Florida, the plaintiff initiated the contact, and a choice-of-law provision alone does not establish jurisdiction.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a dispute between Trustmark Insurance Company and John Hancock Life Insurance Company over 1997 reinsurance contracts that included a mandatory arbitration clause and a confidentiality agreement covering documents and awards from the first arbitration proceeding. After the first arbitration panel ruled that retrocessional business was covered, Hancock initiated a second arbitration and sought to use materials from the first proceeding; the second panel, including arbitrator Mark Gurevitz who had signed the confidentiality agreement, issued orders extending confidentiality and precluding relitigation of certain issues. Trustmark moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the second arbitration with the current panel, arguing that Gurevitz had breached the confidentiality agreement by participating in deliberations on its extension and was therefore no longer disinterested. The court granted the injunction solely as to Gurevitz's participation, finding a likelihood of success on the breach claim and irreparable harm from proceeding with a disqualified arbitrator, while denying removal of the other two panel members who had not signed the agreement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In G.M. Sign, Inc. v. Stergo, the plaintiff sued over an unsolicited one-page fax advertisement sent by the defendant, asserting claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act along with state-law claims for common-law conversion of fax machine supplies and toner and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the conversion and ICFA counts. The court reasoned that the conversion claim failed because the defendant never exercised dominion or control over the plaintiff's property and any harm was de minimis, while the ICFA claim failed the Robinson test for unfair practices because the conduct did not offend public policy, was not immoral or unethical, and did not cause substantial injury to the public. The court noted that the federal TCPA provided the appropriate remedy for the alleged harm.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns whether Ford Motor Company's use of puddle lamps on its vehicles willfully infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,017,903 owned by inventor Jacob Krippelz. After granting summary judgment on infringement, the court held a separate proceeding on willfulness and made findings of fact and conclusions of law under the Seagate standard, which requires clear and convincing evidence of an objectively high likelihood of infringement of a valid patent that was known or should have been known. The court determined that willful infringement occurred during three distinct time periods beginning with Ford's initial use in 1997, based on the record of Ford's awareness of the patent and lack of valid defenses at those stages, but found insufficient evidence of willfulness in a later period after certain developments in the litigation. The opinion addresses only liability for willfulness and defers any decision on damages enhancement.

business & regulatory

The case was a patent infringement suit in which a jury awarded plaintiff Jacob Krippelz $23 million in royalties for defendant Ford Motor Company's infringement of his puddle lamp patent. Krippelz moved for prejudgment interest, costs, and enhanced damages. The court granted the motions in large part, awarding prejudgment interest at the prime rate plus one percent because of the risk of default by Ford, ordering that the interest be compounded, and enhancing damages by twenty-five percent based on Ford's willful infringement, its continued sales of infringing products after receiving notice, and other litigation conduct. The court rejected Ford's arguments that Krippelz's litigation tactics, including requesting reexamination, caused undue delay warranting denial or reduction of these remedies.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved African American plaintiffs Gloria Swanson and Charles Routen who alleged that Citibank and appraiser defendants intentionally discriminated against them on the basis of race by undervaluing their home appraisal and denying a conditionally approved equity loan, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and other federal lending and civil rights statutes. The court addressed defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), applying the plausibility pleading standards from Twombly and Iqbal. It dismissed the claims under the Community Reinvestment Act and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act because neither statute creates a private cause of action, and it found the factual allegations insufficient to plausibly support claims of intentional racial discrimination under the remaining statutes, granting the motions in part and denying them in part.

civil rightsprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves a bankruptcy trustee for Sentinel Management Group suing its auditors, McGladrey & Pullen and a partner, for negligent accounting malpractice and aiding and abetting Sentinel's alleged regulatory violations in segregating customer assets and maintaining net capital. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims are barred by the in pari delicto doctrine and imputation principles because Sentinel's own officers engaged in the misconduct. The court analyzed these doctrines in detail, noting that a company cannot recover against alleged aiders and abettors when its own bad acts are imputed to it, and considered exceptions such as the adverse interest rule while rejecting arguments based on an innocent insider or lack of double recovery risk.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involves plaintiff James Andrews alleging that Chicago police detectives, under the supervision of Lieutenant Jon Burge and other commanders, subjected him to physical and psychological torture during an 18-hour interrogation in 1983 to extract false confessions to two murders. Andrews claims this led to his wrongful conviction and over 24 years of imprisonment, and he sued police officials and prosecutors Richard Daley and Richard Devine for maintaining unconstitutional policies and failing to investigate or stop the pattern of abuse at Area Two. The court dismissed the claims against the prosecutors, holding that they had no knowledge of the specific allegations against Andrews and lacked any duty to intervene in police interrogations or to investigate prior torture claims in a way that would create liability. The reasoning emphasized that prosecutors do not possess police powers or command authority over officers, distinguishing them from cases where liability might attach for direct investigative involvement.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case concerns motions by the Chicago Tribune and CNN to intervene and obtain access to sealed briefs and exhibits filed in connection with Defendant Cellini’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from court-authorized wiretaps in a federal criminal prosecution. The government agreed to public versions of the briefs but sought to keep certain wiretap applications, orders, transcripts, and related materials under seal pursuant to Title III, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2517 and 2518(8)(b), citing privacy interests of uncharged individuals. The court first granted the media intervenors standing to be heard. It then held that the comprehensive statutory scheme of Title III governs disclosure of these materials and displaces any common-law right of access, allowing disclosure only upon a showing of good cause and only to the extent authorized by the statute. The court therefore permitted the parties to file redacted public versions of the briefs but denied immediate access to the remaining sealed documents.

criminal lawfree speechprocedure