Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Ancillary Jurisdiction
| N.D Ill., Eastern Div.
Continental Indemnity Co. v. BII, Inc., No. 23-1648
(June 12, 2024)
(HAMILTON)
Affirmed.
The plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the defendant arising out of an injury to a worker at a construction site. Plaintiff attempted to collect the judgment by adding an insurance company to the action as a garnishee using Illinois state law and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court, however, dismissed the matter by finding that adjudicating the scope of coverage under the applicable insurance policy was outside of its subject matter jurisdiction because it was factually and legally distinct from the underlying lawsuit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that under federal ancillary jurisdiction, proceedings collateral to an underlying lawsuit must be sufficiently related to the facts and legal issues of the original action and that attempting to adjudicate new issues of liability against new parties fell outside the scope of ancillary enforcement jurisdiction. The appellate court noted that in order to resolve the dispute in a federal forum the plaintiff was required to file a new civil action. (BRENNAN and KIRSCH, concurring)
|
Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Immigration Law
| N.D. Ill., Western Div.
Soni v. Jaddou, No. 23-3220
(June 6, 2024)
(EASTERBROOK)
Affirmed.
Plaintiff filed an application with the State Department for a waiver of a waiting period to apply for a visa. After his application had been pending for more than a year, plaintiff filed a lawsuit in district court seeking an order directing the agency to render a decision. The district court, however, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that judicial review was precluded by the applicable language of the federal statutes and that there was no authority for the court to order the executive branch to process a visa waiver application within a specific period of time. (BRENNAN and SCUDDER, concurring)
|
Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Appellate Jurisdiction
| N.D. Ill., Western Div.
AsymaDesign, LLC v. CBL & Associates Management, Inc., No. 23-2495
(June 3, 2024)
(EASTERBROOK)
Appeal dismissed.
The Seventh Circuit dismissed an appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiff, an LLC, after finding that the notice of appeal was signed by an individual who was not an attorney and, thus, could not represent any entity other than himself individually. The Seventh Circuit was not persuaded by plaintiff’s argument that under Illinois corporate law any person may represent a corporation, noting that an LLC is not a corporation, the statutory references cited by the plaintiff did not “supersede the norm” that a member of the bar is required to represent a corporation in court, and that federal rules govern the procedures for litigation in federal court and under those rules only a member of the court’s bar can represent another person or entity in litigation. The Seventh Circuit also urged all lawyers to follow the court’s handbook regarding the use of typography. (BRENNAN and SCUDDER, concurring)
|
Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Bankruptcy
| N.D. Ill., Eastern Div.
Marshall v. Johnson, No. 23-2212
(May 3, 2024)
(KIRSCH)
Affirmed.
In a bankruptcy case, the debtor made payments to the bankruptcy trustee under a proposed payment plan but the plan was never confirmed and the case was dismissed for unreasonable delay. The bankruptcy court then ordered the trustee to return the undisbursed payments without first deducting a statutory percentage fee as compensation. The trustee appealed and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the U.S. Bankruptcy Code requires the Chapter 13 trustee to return the fee when the debtor’s plan is not confirmed. (SYKES and EASTERBROOK, concurring)
|
Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Mootness
| N.D. Ill., Eastern Div.
Doe v. Loyola University Chicago, No. 22-2925
(May 3, 2024)
(EASTERBROOK)
Remanded.
Plaintiff, John Doe, filed a lawsuit against his former university after he was expelled for alleged sexual assault, contending that the university discriminates against men. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals directed the parties to file supplemental briefs explaining plaintiff’s use of a pseudonym and the resulting memorandums raised facts indicating that the case might be moot. The Seventh Circuit remanded so that the district court could address both questions of mootness and anonymity. (ROVNER and ST. EVE, concurring)
|
|