Elaine E. Bucklo

The case involved the Chicago Bears and the NFL Management Council seeking to confirm an arbitration award under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act against players Michael Haynes, Joe Odom, and Cameron Worrell, along with the NFL Players Association. The award stemmed from grievances claiming the players violated their contracts and the CBA by filing workers' compensation claims in California rather than Illinois. The district court confirmed the award in full and denied the defendants' motion to vacate it. The court applied the narrow standard of review for arbitration awards under the LMRA, finding that the arbitrator's decision drew its essence from the agreements' choice-of-law and choice-of-forum provisions and that the defendants' arguments regarding California law, federal labor policy, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause did not overcome the presumption favoring enforcement.

labor & employmentprocedurefederal power

This case involved a dispute over a bill of costs filed by National Union after prevailing in underlying insurance coverage litigation against AMICO and USF&G. The court held that National Union was the prevailing party entitled to costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920, even though it did not prevail on every issue. The court awarded limited fees for service of process capped at marshal rates, allowable court reporter fees for transcripts, and reduced copying costs that were necessary for the case, while denying attorney travel expenses and charges for unnecessary extras like binding or color copies. In total, the court taxed $13,759.65 jointly and severally against AMICO and USF&G, plus an additional $15.80 solely against USF&G.

procedure

This case involves a patent infringement suit brought by Latex Allergen Reduction, LLC against Dynarex Corporation over U.S. Patent 5,777,004, which describes a method for neutralizing protein allergens in natural rubber latex using protease and peptidase enzymes to break them down into non-allergenic fragments. The parties disputed the meaning of several claim terms, prompting the court to conduct a Markman claim construction analysis. The court explained that claim terms receive their ordinary meaning to a person of skill in the art, with primary reliance on the claim language, specification, and prosecution history as intrinsic evidence. It began by addressing the term 'non-allergenic to humans' in Claim 1, rejecting the plaintiff's narrow reading that only some degraded allergens need be non-allergenic and instead tying the requirement to the overall degradation process described in the patent. Additional disputes concerned whether the patent allows a single enzyme to provide both protease and peptidase activity or requires separate enzymes.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, Merit Management Group sued the Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma in federal court for breach of a loan agreement, invoking diversity jurisdiction and obtaining a default judgment after the Tribe failed to respond. The Tribe later moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) to vacate the judgment, arguing that it was void because Indian tribes possess sovereign immunity from suit, are not citizens of any state for diversity purposes, and had not clearly waived immunity for proceedings outside Oklahoma. The court examined the exclusivity agreement's limited waiver provision, which defined non-tribal courts as those sitting in Oklahoma, and found that it did not extend to the Illinois federal court where the suit was filed. The court granted the motion, holding that subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking and that challenges to jurisdiction may be raised at any time, resulting in dismissal of the case.

federal powerprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Ronald Kitchen, who was arrested in 1988 for the Rodriguez/Sepulveda murders, allegedly tortured by Chicago police officers including Jon Burge into signing a false confession, convicted, and sentenced to death; he spent 21 years in prison before suing Burge, other officers, municipal officials, ASAs, Richard Daley, the City, and Cook County, alleging a conspiracy to cover up systemic torture of African-American suspects and suppress exculpatory evidence. The court granted the motions to dismiss filed by Daley and the ASA defendants in full, while granting in part and denying in part the motions of the officer defendants and municipal defendants. Core reasoning centered on absolute prosecutorial immunity protecting Daley and the ASAs from liability for actions and alleged conspiracies tied to their prosecutorial roles, with partial dismissals for other defendants based on immunity doctrines, pleading standards, and the scope of conspiracy claims, while allowing certain claims to proceed.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case arose from a 2009 car collision involving plaintiff Maurice Washington and Chicago police officer Chris Amatore, after which Amatore arrested Washington for cannabis possession based on alleged marijuana found in his vehicle; the charges were later dropped, leading Washington to sue Amatore and the City of Chicago under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, failure to provide medical care, and conspiracy, plus a state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court denied summary judgment on the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims because disputed facts existed regarding whether probable cause supported the arrest, including Washington's denial of possessing marijuana and his account of the collision. It also denied summary judgment on the IIED claim, finding that planting evidence could constitute extreme and outrageous conduct if proven. However, the court granted summary judgment on the medical care and conspiracy claims due to insufficient evidence that Amatore knew of any injury or agreed with others to violate Washington's rights.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

In Robledo v. City of Chicago, plaintiffs sued the City on behalf of a class alleging that its boot-tow-disposition policy for vehicles with unpaid parking fines violated their procedural due process rights under the Constitution as well as Illinois law on takings and bailment. The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment on the constitutional claim, finding that the plaintiffs' evolved due process theory could not survive, and also entered judgment for the City on the state law claims because the record showed they could not succeed. The core reasoning was that the City's notices and procedures provided adequate information about the consequences of unpaid violations and opportunities for hearings, and that plaintiffs' arguments about insufficient process or reliance on state law standards did not establish a viable federal constitutional violation. Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment was denied in full.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

Plaintiff Richard Powell, an employee of XO Services, sued the company and three coworkers for defamation per se and breach of contract after he was investigated, reprimanded, and terminated for disposing of unused telecommunications equipment that a supervisor had directed him to scrap. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the defamation claim against two of the individual employees but denied it as to the company and the third employee, finding the statements potentially actionable and not subject to dismissal at this stage; it denied the remaining personal jurisdiction motion as to that employee. The court dismissed the breach-of-contract claim against all defendants, reasoning that the employee handbook language did not create enforceable contractual rights to specific disciplinary procedures and that the company's prompt investigation and termination did not constitute condonation of any misconduct.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

Shareholders of Huron Consulting Group filed a derivative suit against board members and former executives asserting state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment after the company announced it would restate financial results due to improper GAAP accounting for acquisition-related payments. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint under Rules 12(b)(6) and 23.1. Applying Delaware law, the court held that the Rales test for demand futility governed the Caremark-type oversight claims and that the plaintiffs' allegations failed to plead with particularity facts showing a substantial likelihood of director liability, because they did not demonstrate that the board knew of or consciously ignored red flags regarding internal controls. The complaint was therefore dismissed with prejudice.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Brown v. Calamos, a class of common shareholders sued the Calamos Convertible Opportunities and Income Fund and its managers in state court, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment after the fund redeemed auction market preferred shares and replaced them with less advantageous financing, allegedly to benefit preferred shareholders and maintain relationships with brokers. Defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, arguing that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) barred the state-law claims because they involved alleged misrepresentations or omissions about the perpetual nature of the preferred shares and undisclosed conflicts of interest in connection with covered securities. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand and granted dismissal, finding that the complaint's core allegations of misstatements and omissions met all SLUSA criteria for preclusion in a covered class action, and that the broad statutory language applied even to claims framed as fiduciary breaches.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Domanus v. Lewicki, shareholders in Krakow Business Park SP. Z O.O. sued individual and corporate defendants alleging a pattern of fraud, corporate looting, misappropriation of funds, and money laundering, asserting both direct and derivative claims under the federal RICO statute as well as common-law theories including fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy. The district court denied nine pending motions to dismiss, including those under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, 12(b)(7) for failure to join necessary parties, forum non conveniens, and challenges to personal jurisdiction and service of process. The court reasoned that the third amended complaint set forth sufficiently detailed and lucid allegations identifying specific wrongful transactions by each defendant that formed part of an overall scheme, that Illinois courts could properly exercise jurisdiction over the defendants based on their contacts and control of U.S. entities, and that the U.S. plaintiffs' chosen forum was entitled to deference.

business & regulatoryprocedurecriminal law

In this case, Caldera Pharmaceuticals sued Los Alamos National Security and UChicago Argonne LLC, alleging that the defendants violated an exclusive patent licensing agreement by using and developing the licensed technology without authorization. Argonne moved to dismiss the sole count against it under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing no subject-matter jurisdiction existed because it was not a party to the agreement and Caldera lacked standing to assert patent infringement. The court granted the motion, holding that Caldera failed to establish jurisdiction or articulate any viable legal theory for relief and did not adequately respond to the arguments for dismissal.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned plaintiff Knight's indemnification claim against DuPage County under 745 ILCS 10/9-102, which she had repleaded after the County stipulated to cover any judgment or settlement against the defendant sheriff's deputies. The court granted the County's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Count III of the amended complaint. The core reasoning was that the stipulation fully addressed indemnification for both judgments and settlements, rendering the claim moot, and that the County was not a necessary party because the deputies were sued only in their individual capacities.

procedure

This qui tam case under the false marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, involved allegations that defendant Walthers marked its Darda toy products with expired or inapplicable patent numbers. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant and denied the plaintiff's motion, holding that the plaintiff failed to show the specific intent to deceive the public required by the statute. The undisputed facts showed that the defendant acquired the product line and its existing packaging procedures, and employees continued using the markings without verifying their accuracy or knowing they were false, treating them as standard because they had always been present. Although the defendant took prompt corrective action once the errors were identified, there was no evidence that any corporate agent possessed knowledge of the falsity or acted with deceptive intent, and carelessness alone does not satisfy the statutory standard.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this patent case, Viskase sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of World Pac's U.S. Patent No. 6,200,613 on multilayered food casings that impart color or flavor while preventing weight and taste loss, and World Pac counterclaimed for infringement. The court granted Viskase's motion for summary judgment of invalidity on the ground that the asserted claims were anticipated by Japanese Application H2-69131, a prior art reference published more than one year before the patent application, and denied all remaining motions as moot. The core reasoning was that the undisputed evidence showed every element of the claims, including the multilayer structure with an absorbent inner layer, was disclosed in that single prior art reference, rendering the patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

business & regulatory

In Wiegel v. Stork Craft Manufacturing, Inc., plaintiff Celina Wiegel sued the manufacturer and retailer of a baby crib purchased for her as a gift in 2008, alleging violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) and unjust enrichment after the crib model was recalled due to an alleged defect. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Wiegel lacked standing under the ICFA because she was not the purchaser, had not suffered actual damages, and could not show proximate cause, and that her unjust enrichment claim failed because she did not directly confer a benefit on the defendants. The court denied the motion, holding that the ICFA protects any person who suffers actual damages from a violation rather than only consumers who made the purchase, that economic harm such as lost resale value qualifies as damages, and that a jury could find proximate cause based on her research and selection of the crib; it also ruled that unjust enrichment claims in Illinois do not require the plaintiff to have directly conferred the benefit. The decision relied on the statutory text of the ICFA, Seventh Circuit precedent, and Illinois case law recognizing third-party benefit transfers in certain circumstances.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Charles Boyle suing University of Chicago Police Department officers, Chicago Police Department officers, and the City of Chicago under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Illinois law, alleging excessive force, false arrest, and related claims arising from a 2008 confrontation during a car malfunction in Hyde Park that escalated into an arrest. The court granted the CPD officers' motion for summary judgment in its entirety and granted the UCPD officers' motion in part while denying it in part. The core reasoning centered on the presence of genuine disputes of material fact in the parties' differing accounts of the physical encounter, which precluded summary judgment on certain excessive force claims, while finding insufficient evidence or legal support for other claims such as those against the CPD officers and some UCPD claims.

civil rightstorts & liability

Valerie Taylor sued her employer Temp-Air for sex discrimination under Title VII, alleging that after returning from medical leave she was reassigned to a new territory without an established customer list, unlike her male colleagues, in a move designed to set her up for failure. Temp-Air filed a counterclaim to recover wage and benefit payments made on her behalf during leave. The court denied summary judgment on Taylor's discrimination claim, finding she had established a prima facie case by showing she was meeting job expectations before the transfer, suffered an adverse action, and was treated less favorably than similarly situated male employees. On the counterclaim, the court granted summary judgment for the health insurance premium payments Temp-Air made but denied it for the disputed salary overpayment due to conflicting evidence about whether Taylor worked during that period.

civil rightslabor & employment

Philip Basa sued Rizza Chevrolet for unpaid overtime under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, alleging violations alongside a federal FLSA claim. The defendant moved to dismiss the state claim, arguing it was preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA because a collective bargaining agreement governed the employment relationship and would require interpretation. The court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that preemption applies only when parties actually dispute specific CBA terms relevant to liability. Following Seventh Circuit precedent in Wisconsin Central, the court found it premature to decide preemption absent any identified disagreement over the CBA's meaning.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved claims by direct access trading firms (plaintiffs) against Knight Financial Products, an options specialist, alleging that Knight violated Rule 10b-5 by intentionally mishandling plaintiffs' orders—such as by delaying executions, fading quotes, and prioritizing its own proprietary trades—to profit from market anomalies at plaintiffs' expense. Knight moved for summary judgment on the federal securities claim and asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims. The court granted summary judgment, holding that plaintiffs failed to identify any actionable misrepresentation or omission, that price quotes did not constitute express misrepresentations, and that plaintiffs could not establish the requisite deception or duty under Rule 10b-5 based on alleged violations of exchange rules or implied representations. The court also denied plaintiffs' request for additional discovery, finding their existing response insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.

business & regulatoryprocedure