Federal Civil Practice

In action to compel defendant-reinsurance company owned by Uruguay to arbitrate action by plaintiff-insurance company alleging that defendant owed plaintiff $2,352,464.08 under reinsurance contracts, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer to complaint due to defendant’s failure to post security under Illinois Unauthorized Insurers Process (UIPA) to cover instant claim. Plaintiff conceded that Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) generally applied to defendant, and FSIA barred application of UIPA to defendant since security required by UIPA qualified as “attachment” under FSIA. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that defendant was not obligated to arbitrate parties’ dispute, since contract in which plaintiff purchased instant claim did not include right to demand arbitration.

Dist. Ct. erred in assessing attorney fees under 42 USC section 1988 against City in plaintiff’s section 1983 action alleging that defendant-police officer used excessive force while detaining plaintiff at police station, where jury awarded plaintiff $1 in compensatory damages and $7,500 in punitive damages against police officer. While plaintiff sought such fees under section 9-102 of Ill. Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, section 9-102 granted City discretion in choosing to indemnify plaintiff for attorney fees generated in plaintiff's action against police officer, which it was not required to do in instant case.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-University’s motion for summary judgment in section 1981 action alleging that defendant improperly disaffiliated plaintiff-Jewish Chabad House from its campus and directed University’s food supplier to terminate its contract with plaintiff’s Rabbi due to defendant’s hostility to Chabad sect of Judaism. Plaintiff’s allegation of religious discrimination is not covered under section 1981, and record otherwise showed that basis for disaffiliation from University was based on complaints of under-aged drinking/alcohol abuse at plaintiff’s House. Fact that certain University staff did not take same measures against other student organizations did not require different result, since said organizations were distinguishable in that they were not managed by adults, and since alleged leniency by University staff occurred at time different decision-maker was in charge.

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendants-police officers’ motion for summary judgment, asserting that they were entitled to qualified immunity in section 1983 action by plaintiff-Nigerian national, alleging that defendants failed to comply with Article 36 of Vienna Convention in Consular Relations, which requires “authorities” to inform plaintiff of his right to have his own consular officials alerted to his arrest or detention. While defendants failed to comply with Article 36 notification obligation after plaintiff was arrested and charged with drug offense, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, where case law was unclear as whether instant defendants, who arrested, transported and interrogated plaintiff within three-hour period had any duty to ascertain plaintiff’s nationality and then inform him of his Convention rights.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s section 1983 action alleging that defendants (police officer and others) engaged in malicious prosecution of plaintiff on theft and fraud charges, where plaintiff was eventually found not guilty of said charges. Plaintiff failed to allege predicate constitutional violation in support of his 14th Amendment malicious prosecution claim, and plaintiff otherwise had no constitutional right not to be prosecuted without probable cause. Moreover, plaintiff failed to state viable 4th Amendment malicious prosecution claim, where any “seizure” of plaintiff ended when prosecution began, and where plaintiff’s allegations concerned conduct that occurred after said arraignment.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant (provider of rental DVDs) violated Video Privacy Protection Act, when it disclosed to third-party defendant’s customer database to assist third-party when third-party fielded calls from defendant’s customers at customer service call center. Defendant’s actions fell within statutory exception for disclosures incident to “request processing” related to its rentals of DVDs.

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing plaintiff’s section 1983 action alleging that defendants-police officials subjected him to unlawful arrest in Aldi’s parking lot on charge of driving without valid license. While Dist. Ct. believed that plaintiff’s lawsuit was precluded by Heck, 512 US 477, since defendant had pleaded guilty to charge that stemmed from instant arrest, plaintiff could proceed on his lawsuit, where finding that defendant was subject to unlawful seizure would have no bearing or relevance to validity of his guilty plea and/or factual basis for his ensuing conviction.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss instant mandamus action by plaintiff-physician seeking to compel defendant to process his Medicare claims that he had submitted for reimbursement, but were being held up for processing due to fact that plaintiff had been indicted on Medicare fraud charges. Dist. Ct. lacked jurisdiction to consider instant mandamus action, since plaintiff had failed to exhaust all of his administrative remedies within Dept. of Health and Human Services prior to filing instant mandamus action. Ct. further observed that because instant claims were submitted by individual who was under indictment for Medicare fraud, said claims were not “clean claims” that were subject to any mandatory time frame for making payments to plaintiff.

In section 1983 action by plaintiff-prisoner alleging that defendant-prison medical director was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s medical needs that concerned an alleged stomach infection, as well as certain keloids on his body, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff’s request for issuance of preliminary injunction that would have required defendant to immediately refer plaintiff to “suitable doctor.” Laboratory results supplied by plaintiff indicated that plaintiff did not have stomach infection, and medical records indicated that plaintiff’s keloids were small and were being treated by prison doctors. (Dissent filed.)

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies plaintiff-pre-trial detainee’s section 1983 action, alleging that he was denied medical care for bullet wound to his abdomen. Although plaintiff had failed to file formal grievance with prison officials regarding said wound, record showed that plaintiff orally informed certain prison officials about his wound, and that said officials told plaintiff not to file formal grievance because plaintiff’s problem with his wound would be resolved informally. As such, plaintiff was not required to file formal grievance prior to filing instant action, where said prison officials invited his noncompliance with grievance procedure.