February 2016 Federal Civil Practice Newsletter

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against its former business partner alleging misappropriation of trade secrets under federal law and unjust enrichment under Illinois common law. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant by finding that plaintiff failed to define its trade secrets with sufficient specificity. The case moved to pretrial proceedings on the unjust enrichment claim and the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed that claim after the district court granted a motion in limine limiting the scope of the claim. The district court then entered a final judgment in favor of the defendant and plaintiff appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence from which a jury could conclude that its software modules qualified as trade secrets and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in precluding plaintiff from arguing a new and undeveloped theory of liability shortly before trial. (BRENNAN and KOLAR, concurring)

Plaintiff, a Massachusetts non-profit corporation organized as a religious institution, filed a lawsuit against the Indiana attorney general and a county prosecutor in their official capacities, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of an Indiana state law that prohibits and criminalizes the telehealth provision of medication intended to induce abortions. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss by finding that plaintiff lacked standing on behalf of its members and plaintiff appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court did not err in finding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff lacked standing to sue. The appellate court explained that the plaintiff did not identify any member who was in fact injured, precluding subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds of associational standing. (EASTERBROOK and KIRSCH, concurring)

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)