February 2016 Federal Civil Practice Newsletter

Plaintiff, a former lieutenant with the county sheriff’s department, filed a lawsuit against his former employer alleging that his employer coerced him to resign and waive his right to a hearing before the merit board due to allegations that he had used excessive force and that the resignation violated plaintiff’s rights under both state law and his federal procedural due process rights. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that defendants were protected by absolute and qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that the prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity for their filing of Brady/Giglio disclosures in plaintiff’s criminal cases, but that the remaining allegations were sufficient to move past the pleading stage. (SCUDDER and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, concurring)

Plaintiff and defendant reached an agreement for the plaintiff to purchase one of defendant’s subsidiary companies. The plaintiff did not provide the agreed-upon purchase price by the closing date contained in the agreement and the defendant sold the subsidiary to another company. Plaintiff then filed a lawsuit seeking damages for the unsuccessful transaction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendant, explaining that plaintiff’s breach of contract claim failed as a matter of law because plaintiff did not provide any proof of expectation or reliance damages. (LEE and MALDONADO, concurring)

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit against the City of Chicago and a towing company that works for the city alleging that the city’s vehicle forfeiture scheme was facially unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause and the Illinois constitution. Plaintiffs also brought a state-law unjust enrichment claim. The district court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to state a claim and plaintiffs appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court correctly determined that vehicle forfeiture under the city’s traffic code was not a taking. (SCUDDER and PRYOR, concurring)

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging that the defendants’ “virtual try-on” feature that allowed users to test facial products like lipstick violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act through its capture and use of facial data. The district court certified a class of users within the state of Illinois and defendants filed an interlocutory appeal challenging that certification ruling. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that users of the product lacked sufficient incentive to bring individual lawsuits. (ROVNER and HAMILTON, concurring)

Plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security alleging that its practice of arresting individuals without a warrant and without probable cause that the subjects were likely to escape before warrants could be obtained violated federal law governing immigration arrests effectuated without a warrant. Defendants entered into a consent decree agreeing to issue a policy statement that affirmed the underlying laws and policies, to provide relevant training, and to document compliance. In exchange, defendants obtained a dismissal with prejudice and a release of all related claims. Defendants then sought a stay pending appeal of two recent orders in which the district court extended the term of the consent decree and in which the court ordered the release of individuals who were arrested in violation of federal law. The Seventh Circuit granted in part and denied in part defendant’s request for a stay pending appeal, denying the request as it pertained to the extension of the consent decree but granting it with regard to the release of individuals from federal custody. (PRYOR, concurring and KIRSCH, dissenting)