U.S. Seventh Circuit

Sherwood v. Marquette Transp. Co., LLC, No. 09-2045

2009-11-23T23:33:45Z

In plaintiff's suit against his employer under the Jones Act and general maritime law for injuries he suffered while working as a deckhand, defendant-employer's appeal of a district court's denial of its motion to stay the suit in favor of arbitration is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. section 16(a)(1)(A) as: 1) section 16 is part of the Federal Arbitration Act, and as such, under the language of section 1, does not apply to any employment contract involving a seaman; and 2) section also is inapplicable, and defendant's motion for a stay did not rely on it.

Read Sherwood v. Marquette Transp. Co., LLC, No. 09-2045

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois

Decided November 23, 2009

Judges

Before: Easterbrook, Chief Judge, and Evans, and Williams, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Easterbrook, Chief Judge

Hukic v. Aurora Loan Serv., No. 07-3826

2009-11-21T00:48:43Z

In plaintiff's suit against defendants claiming breach of contract, tortious interference, and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, arising from a six-figure mortgage he obtained at an interest rate of 10.65% where he was to make monthly payments as well as taxes, insurance premiums and other charges and fees, summary judgment in defendants' favor and dismissal of plaintiff's claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress is affirmed because plaintiff did not comply with the terms of his agreement that required him to submit proof of payment.

Hukic v. Aurora Loan Serv., No. 07-3826

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Decided November 20, 2009

Judges

Before: Bauer, Evans, and Williams, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Williams, Circuit Judge

Curia v. Nelson, No. 07-2766

2009-11-21T00:45:38Z

In parties' dispute over the terms of a stock purchase agreement entered into in 1989 and several modification of the agreement over the next decade involving a small number of shares in two automobile dealerships and whether the contract also gave plaintiff option to purchase remaining shares, summary judgment in plaintiff's favor is reversed as extrinsic evidence is required to clarify what the parties meant because the contract as modified is reasonably susceptible to both parties' interpretation and is therefore ambiguous regarding the survival of the options.

Curia v. Nelson, No. 07-2766

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division

Decided November 20, 2009

Judges

Before: Williams, and Kanne and Sykes, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Sykes

Scruggs v. Garst Seed Co., No. 07-2266

2009-11-21T00:42:22Z

In an action raising claims of retaliation and a hostile work environment, summary judgment in favor of plaintiff's former employer is affirmed where: 1) the company did not retaliate against plaintiff for filing the discrimination charge when it eliminated her position as it was eliminated by a company-wide restructuring; 2) although plaintiff claims that the company also retaliated against her when it did not hire her for one of the open positions after the restructuring, it hired the person who had previously held the position; and 3) the relatively isolated gender-based comments and remarks plaintiff's supervisor directed toward her were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to rise to the level of a hostile work environment.

Scruggs v. Garst Seed Co., No. 07-2266

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division

Decided November 20, 2009

Judges

Before: Bauer, Wood, and Williams, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Williams, Circuit Judge

US v. Miller, No. 09-2256

2009-11-19T22:41:51Z

District court's order to destroy 34 firearms and for the defendant to collect just compensation from the government arising from his conviction of aiding and abetting the possession of firearms by a felon, is vacated and remanded as, because the government did not commence a timely forfeiture proceeding, defendant's property interest in the firearms continues even though his possessory interest has been curtailed, and as such, if the government does not want to sell the firearms for his account, then it must offer defendant some other lawful option, such as having a trustee sell or hold the guns, or giving them to someone who can be relied on to treat them as his own.

Read US v. Miller, No. 09-2256

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division

Decided November 19, 2009

Judges

Before: Easterbrook, Chief Judge, and Kanne and Tinder, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Easterbrook, Chief Judge

Boyer v. Crown Stock Distrib., Inc. , No. 09-1699

2009-11-18T23:18:02Z

In Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings, district court's judgment in favor of the trustee, who had filed an adversary action against the defendants claiming fraudulent conveyance under the section 4(a)(2) of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) bankruptcy court did not commit clear error in finding that statutory condition for a fraudulent conveyance was satisfied; and 2) district court's ruling with respect to the dividend is reversed as the trustee is entitled to the dividend because it was an integral part of the leveraged buy-out.

Read Boyer v. Crown Stock Distrib., Inc. , No. 09-1699

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division

Decided November 18, 2009

Judges

Before: Posner, Rovner, and Williams, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Posner, Circuit Judge

Bandak v. Eli Lilly, No. 09-1620

2009-11-18T23:14:53Z

District court's judgment in favor of plaintiff in his ERISA suit against his former employer's retirement plan is affirmed as defendant's rejection of plaintiff's claim was not substantially justified in reducing his benefits under the 1997 amendment after he transferred from the United Kingdom to the US affiliate.

Read Bandak v. Eli Lilly, No. 09-1620

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division

Decided November 18, 2009

Judges

Before: Posner, Rovner, and Williams, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Posner, Circuit Judge

US v. Skoien, No. 08-3770

2009-11-18T23:07:58Z

Conviction of defendant for possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(9) is vacated and remanded where: 1) on the facts of the case, the intermediate scrutiny applies; and 2) the government has done almost nothing to discharge the burden of establishing a reasonable fit between the statute's means and its end.

Read US v. Skoien, No. 08-3770

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin

Decided November 18, 2009

Judges

Before: Bauer, Sykes, and Tinder, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Sykes, Circuit Judge

US v. Rogers, No. 08-1516

2009-11-18T23:04:32Z

In a prosecution of defendant for attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity and for using the Internet to attempt to transfer obscene material to a minor, district court's exclusion of prosecution's Rule 413 evidence of two prior instances of similar conduct, is reversed and remanded as the record causes doubt whether the district court fully appreciated the legal relation between Rules 413 and 403.

Read US v. Rogers, No. 08-1516

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Decided November 10, 2009

Judges

Before: Cudhay, Flaum, and Wood, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Wood, Circuit Judge

O'Neal v. City of Chicago, No. 09-1716

2009-11-17T22:23:55Z

In plaintiff's second employment discrimination suit against the Chicago Police Department (CPD) claiming retaliation and sex discrimination, summary judgment in favor of CPD is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff provided insufficient evidence that she suffered an adverse employment action because she engaged in statutorily protected activity by direct method of proof that either of her two actionable transfers occurred because of her prior lawsuit or her 2006 grievance; 2) plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to establish a causal connection under the indirect method of proof; and 3) plaintiff failed on her sex discrimination claim for the same reason as her retaliation claim, as she failed to adduce any evidence indicating that her actionable transfers were because of her sex.

Read O'Neal v. City of Chicago, No. 09-1716

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Decided November 17, 2009

Judges

Before: Bauer, Wood, and Williams, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Bauer, Circuit Judge

US v. Ye, No. 08-1333

2009-11-17T22:20:08Z

Defendant's conviction for concealing, harboring, or shielding from detection illegal aliens and hiring illegal aliens is affirmed where: 1) the district court's supplemental jury instruction on the meaning of "shielding" was not erroneous; and 2) the evidence was sufficient to prove defendant intended to prevent government authorities from detecting the presence of the illegal aliens.

Read US v. Ye, No. 08-1333

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois

Decided November 17, 2009

Judges

Before: Bauer, Manion, and Sykes, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Manion, Circuit Judge

Bloch v. Frischholz, No. 06-3376

2009-11-13T23:27:30Z

In plaintiffs' Fair Housing Act (FHA) suit against their condo association for being required to remove a mezuzah from their doorpost under a new rule requiring that common hallways and outside of the doors be kept free of any objects, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor the condo association and its president is reversed for the most part where: 1) the judgment of the district court with respect to plaintiffs' claims under sections 3604(b), 3617 and 1982 is reversed as a trier of fact could conclude that the condo association's reinterpretation of the hallway rule and clearing of all objects from doorposts was intended to target only group of residents for which the prohibited practice was religiously required; 2) plaintiffs can therefore proceed on an intentional discrimination theory under sections 3604(b), 3617 and 1982; and 3) district court's judgment granting summary judgment against the plaintiffs on their section 3604(a) claim is affirmed.

Read Bloch v. Frischholz, No. 06-3376

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Decided November 13, 2009

Judges

Before: Easterbrook, Chief Judge, and Bauer, Kanne, Wood, Evans, Sykes, Tinder and Posner, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Tinder, Circuit Judge

US v. Robinson, No. 08-4251

2009-11-10T23:12:36Z

District court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress a statement he gave to law enforcement agents implicating himself in criminal firearms trafficking is affirmed as, district court did not commit clear error in finding that defendant initiated conversation with law enforcement, and thus, the law enforcement agents did not interrogate defendant in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, and the court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his incriminating statements.

Read US v. Robinson, No. 08-4251

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Decided November 10, 2009

Judges

Before: Posner, Manion, and Evans, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Manion, Circuit Judge

Wetzler v. Illinois CPA Soc'y & Found., No. 08-2923

2009-11-10T23:09:29Z

In plaintiff's ERISA suit against the Illinois CPA Society & Foundation Retirement Income Plan (Plan) for denying his request for a lump-sum distribution, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court applied the correct standard of review to both the administrator's interpretation of the terms of the Plan and the legal determination of whether the plan violated the anti-cutback provisions of ERISA; 2) administrator's interpretation of the plan such that a lump-sum benefits was not available to plaintiff prior to Amendment One is well-reasoned and not arbitrary and capricious; 3) Amendment One did not eliminate an "optional form of benefit" and does not violate ERISA's anti-cutback provision because the plan participants were not entitled, under the Plan, to a lump-sum distribution; and 4) administrator's decision to deny a lump-sum distribution to plaintiff was not arbitrary and capricious as it would have put the Plan in deficit and would have violated the Internal Revenue Code, thus risking the tax status of the plan for all of its participants.

Read Wetzler v. Illinois CPA Soc'y & Found., No. 08-2923

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois

Decided November 10, 2009

Judges

Before: Kanne and Manion, Circuit Judges, and Kendall, District Judge

Opinion by Manion, Circuit Judge

Bond v. Utreras, No. 07-2651

2009-11-10T23:05:38Z

An independent journalist's petition for permission to intervene to challenge a protective order that prohibited public disclosure of confidential voluminous materials relating to citizen complaints against the officers after a plaintiff's settlement against the city of Chicago and several members of its police department, district court's order simultaneously granting the journalist's request to intervene and lifting the order in its entirety is vacated because the petition to intervene should have been dismissed for lack of standing where: 1) the controversy originally supporting the court's jurisdiction no longer existed at the time the court acted on the petition; 2) the parties had settled; 3) the case was dismissed with prejudice; and 4) neither plaintiff nor the city asked the court to revisit and modify the terms of the protective order postjudgment. Furthermore, the district court lacked any alternative jurisdictional basis to revisit and revoke the protective order sua sponte as there is no presumption of public access emanating from Rule 26(c)'s good cause requirement for discovery that is not party of the court file.

Read Bond v. Utreras, No. 07-2651

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Decided November 10, 2009

Judges

Before: Kanne, Sykes, and Tinder, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Sykes, Circuit Judge