Federal Civil Practice

Five citizens of India win the United States as students with F-1 visas, filed a lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act after they were denied re-entry after returning home for short periods of time. The district court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the applicable statute forecloses judicial review of determinations relating to an order of removal. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that neither the court of appeals nor the district court can review an expedited order of removal and that the APA does not authorize judicial review that is foreclosed by another statute. (HAMILTON and MALDONADO, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a qui tam action against defendant and 14 other drug manufacturers in federal court alleging that they falsely lowered drug prices, which led to Medicaid underpayments in violation of the Federal Claims Act. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, which was trebled under the provisions of the FCA. Defendant appealed, challenging the district court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment as well as they jury’s determinations on the issues of scienter and materiality. Plaintiff cross-appealed, arguing that the district court incorrectly calculated the number of violations under the FCA. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding no errors in the district court’s legal or factual analysis or in the jury’s verdict. (RIPPLE and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, concurring)

Plaintiff and her business, which provides guidance for individuals planning or making death and funeral arrangements filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the State of Indiana alleging that enforcement of a statute relating to funeral homes against plaintiffs would violate the First Amendment. The district court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the statute against the plaintiffs and the state of Indiana appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the plaintiffs were sufficiently likely to succeed on their claims and that the district court did not err in entering the injunction. (JACKSON-AKIWUMI and MALDONADO, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging defamation, contending that statements made by the defendants led to allegations of fraud and misconduct against the plaintiff in probate court. The district court dismissed several claims, including one brought under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and then granted summary judgment to the defendants on the remaining claim of defamation per se. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the consumer fraud claim because there was no allegation that defendants gave estate administrators unauthorized access to personal information but reversed the entry of judgment on the defamation per se claim because the statements were not subject to an innocent construction and a privilege did not apply. (BRENNAN and KOLAR, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the City of Chicago and two of its police officers after the officers seized his dog and arrested him for animal abuse. The district court dismissed some of the claims early in the case and granted summary judgment on the remaining claims concluding that the officers had arguable probable cause for the arrest and had qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit reversed on the district court’s finding of qualified immunity explaining that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the officers had arguable probable cause. (EASTERBROOK, concurring and ST. EVE, concurring in part and dissenting in part)

A group of drivers brought a lawsuit against Uber Technologies, Inc., alleging that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois wage laws by misclassifying them as independent contractors. The defendant moved the district court to compel the drivers to arbitrate their claims under the Federal Arbitration Act and Illinois Uniform Arbitration Act, citing provisions contained in their driver agreements. The district court granted the request as to three of four drivers. The fourth driver pursued a claim in state court where the state court concluded that the arbitration provisions were ineffectual because that driver had exercised his right to opt out of the applicable arbitration agreement. The district court then concluded that the doctrine of issue preclusion blocked defendant from relitigating the effect of the arbitration agreement as to the fourth driver. Defendant appealed and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. (KIRSCH and KOLAR, concurring)

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging that the defendant’s warranty practices on motorcycles violated multiple provisions of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and various antitrust laws by conditioning warranty coverage on the exclusive use of parts made by the defendant. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and plaintiffs appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim where the warranty contained a clear and compliant exclusion provision combined with more general warnings in a separate document, but did not rule out the possibility that a future warranty might combine an express disclaimer with sufficient implied ties that would deceive a reasonable consumer, potentially giving rise to a cause of action. (KOLAR, concurring and LEE, concurring in part and dissenting in part)

The Seventh Circuit considered an interlocutory appeal in a case that began nearly two decades ago involving a class action lawsuit against the Illinois Department of Corrections and a resulting settlement agreement with a provision allowing for judicial enforcement of the agreement. At issue in the current appeal was the propriety of an injunction entered by the district court requiring the defendants to address five areas of non-compliance and a related payment of attorney fees by the defendant to the plaintiffs. The court also considered questions of subject-matter jurisdiction and mootness. The Seventh Circuit found that the resolution of the issues hinged on whether the claims were moot under the settlement agreement and vacated and remanded for the district court to resolve the mootness question. The Seventh Circuit further held that its decision to vacate the district court’s injunction did not require plaintiff’s counsel to return the payment of attorneys fees. (ROVNER and BRENNAN, concurring)