Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Wrongful Death
| W.D. Wis.
Estate of Wallmow v. Oneida County, No. 23-2141
(April 17, 2024)
(ST. EVE)
Affirmed.
District court did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a case where plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging a series of constitutional claims after the plaintiff’s decedent committed suicide in a county jail. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that there were no constitutional violations where the record did not support the inference that the defendant knew that the decedent faced a serious risk of harm and that the jail followed its own policies regarding suicide risk. (EASTERBROOK and SCUDDER, concurring)
|
Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Discrimination
| S.D. Ind., Indianapolis Div.
Circle City Broadcasting I, LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc., No. 23-1787
(April 16, 2024)
(SCUDDER)
Affirmed.
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination against the corporation’s majority owner when the defendants declined to pay broadcast fees for the rights to carry the plaintiff’s two Indianapolis-based television stations. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendant, concluding that plaintiff failed to identify evidence permitting a jury to find that the decisions not to pay the broadcast fees reflected anything other than lawful business choices and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. (WOOD and LEE, concurring)
|
Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Fourth Amendment
| N.D. Ill., Eastern Div.
Washington v. City of Chicago, No. 22-2467
(April 15, 2024)
(HAMILTON)
Affirmed.
In a case where plaintiffs brought claims alleging unlawful pretrial detention, the Seventh Circuit held that the district court did not err when it concluded that the plaintiffs’ pre-trial detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment where there was probable cause for their detention. Additionally, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the trial court did not err when it concluded that plaintiffs could not maintain an action for malicious prosecution where there was probable cause to detain them. (ROVNER and WOOD, concurring)
|
Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Removal Jurisdiction
| N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Roberts v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., No. 23-2992
(April 8, 2024)
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in remanding to state court plaintiffs’ multi-consolidated lawsuit, seeking recovery against defendants-shooter, shooter’s father and gun manufacturer of gun used by shooter in Highland Park parade event. Plaintiffs alleged actions under Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Record showed that only three defendants moved for removal, and basis for remand order was provision in 28 USC section 1446(b)(B)(A),which requires consent of all defendants for removal, which did not occur here. Ct. of Appeals rejected defendants' arguments that necessity that all defendants agree to remove case did not apply, since: (1) defendant gun manufacturer qualified as entity acting under federal officer for purposes 28 USC section 1442(a)(1); or (2) instant removal was exempt from all-defendant consent under 28 USC section1441(c)(2) because federal issue was imbedded in underlying state-law claims.
|
Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Standing
| N.D. Ill., E. Div.
In Re: Recalled Abbott Infant Formula Products Liability Litigation, No. 23-2525
(April 2, 2024)
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did nor err in dismissing for lack of standing plaintiffs’ action, alleging economic harm stemming from voluntary recall of defendant’s infant formula that plaintiffs claimed exposed them to potential risk of injury due to fact that formula was produced at defendant’s plant under unclean conditions. Record showed that defendant announced voluntary recall of formula and offered full refund to those who possessed formula. Ct. of Appeals observed that plaintiff’s risk-of-harm theory does not support Article III standing, and further observed that plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were hypothetical and conjectural. Ct. of Appeals also noted that plaintiffs did not allege that formula they purchased was contaminated or that they were subject to risk of harm in personal or individual way.
|
|