February 2016 Federal Civil Practice Newsletter

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit containing multiple claims relating to a failed business relationship, including breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent misrepresentation. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims and plaintiff appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court correctly dismissed the breach of contract claims because no reasonable jury could conclude that the parties had a preliminary agreement containing all essential terms of a contract, that there was no evidence from which a jury could find reliance on the fraudulent misrepresentation claims, that there was no evidence of unjust enrichment, and that there was no evidence that defendant provided “advice” as is required to support a claim of negligent misrepresentation. (EASTERBROOK and LEE, concurring)

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion challenging the allocation of fees among plaintiffs’ attorneys in the settlement of a multidistrict litigation. The appellate court also expressed concern that the district court’s order could be interpreted as having delegated final authority to lead plaintiffs’ counsel to distribute the total fee award but explained that the district court did not abuse it discretion by enforcing its prior orders establishing procedures and requirements for seeking attorney fees and expenses. (BRENNAN and SCUDDER, concurring)

Plaintiff, a public employee, believed that his employer had taken action against him for unlawful reasons and sought relief under both state and federal law in both administrative proceedings and lawsuits. The Seventh Circuit considered the question of whether the law of claim preclusion defeated plaintiff’s claims. The appellate court concluded that the principles of claim preclusion blocked most of plaintiff’s claims filed in a federal lawsuit except for those claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Plaintiff appealed after U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services rejected his petitions to have his spouse classified as his immediate relative under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The rejection was premised on the government’s determination that plaintiff, who was previously convicted of aggravated criminal sexual abuse involving a minor, failed to show that he did not pose a risk to his spouse. The district court dismissed all but one count for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed the sole reviewable count for failure to state a claim. The Seventh Circuit agreed that plaintiffs’ claims were either not reviewable or failed on the merits and affirmed. (RIPPLE and LEE, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a trademark infringement and counterfeiting action against dozens of e-commerce vendors, most of which, including the defendant, resided in China. The district court allowed plaintiffs to serve defendant in China by email by finding that the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (also known as the Hague Service Commission) permitted service in that manner. The district court then entered default judgment. Defendant eventually appeared and moved to vacate the judgment for lack of proper service. The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, explaining that the Convention prohibits email service in China and that the district court must decide whether the Convention applied at all to the matter. (JACKSON-AKIWUMI and PRYOR, concurring)