Federal Civil Practice

Dist. Ct. did not err in finding defendant in contempt for violating court-approved settlement by misrepresenting content of his book "The Weight Loss Cure 'They" Don't Want You to Know About" and establishing $37.6 million remedial fine, which was based on price of defendant's book generated from 1-800-number orders, plus shipping costs, less returns. Dist. Ct. could base remedial sanction on consumer loss, rather than defendant's unjust gain. Moreover, Dist. Ct. had authority to modify original consent order to include defendant's requirement to post $2 million performance bond prior to making any additional informercials where record showed that defendant had produced 32,000-plus broadcasts of deceptive informercials under terms of original consent order. Ct. also rejected plaintiff's claim that imposition of performance bond requirement constituted violation of his First Amendment rights.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant's forum non conveniens motion so as to transfer to court in Mexico instant product liability action alleging injuries arising out of defectively manufactured tires that were installed on defendant's vehicle. Ct. further noted that circumstances of instant transfer request were present in 2009 Seventh Circuit case of Abad v. Bayer Corp., 563 F3d 663, and criticized plaintiff's counsel for having failed to either mention or distinguish Abad case once counsel had become aware of its existence. Ct. also observed that appellate counsel may not simply ignore controlling precedent in effort to prevail on appeal.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury's award of $250,000 in compensatory and $100,000 in pro-rated punitive damages as to one of several prevailing plaintiffs in action alleging that defendant-principal failed to prevent sexual abuse of plaintiffs-female middle-school students by their male band teacher. While defendant argued that jury's compensatory award was improper because it was based only on totality of his conduct towards all plaintiffs, testimony of plaintiff's counselor supported plaintiff's claim that defendant caused her severe emotional distress. Moreover, fact that jury's award to plaintiff fell within spectrum of greater damage awards to other plaintiffs indicated that jury gave careful consideration of circumstances for each plaintiff. Fact that plaintiff did not blame defendant as sole source of her difficulties did not require different result.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for failure to exhaust internal administrative remedies plaintiff-prisoner's section 1983 action alleging that defendants-prison officials used excessive force by rousing him from his prison cell and breaking his arm. Record showed that plaintiff had failed to file internal complaint within applicable 48-hour deadline. Dist. Ct. could properly credit testimonies of prison officials, who claimed that plaintiff never requested their assistance for initiating any internal complaint within 48-hour deadline. Fact that plaintiff had discussed his ailments with prison officials within 48-hour period, or that he participated in subsequent internal affairs investigation of underlying incident was immaterial.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting plaintiff's motion for class certification in case alleging violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act arising out of allegation that defendant sent unsolicited fax advertisements to various individuals in class, where record contained evidence of misconduct on part of plaintiff's counsel. Misconduct took form of counsel obtaining information about alleged faxes from third-party under false pretenses, as well as counsel's misrepresentation to named class representative that there was already certified class to which representative belonged. As such, denial of class certification was appropriate where there was no confidence that class counsel would act as conscientious fiduciary of class members. Ct. further rejected Dist. Ct.'s observation that only egregious misconduct by counsel could ever arguably justify denial of class status.

In section 1983 action alleging that defendants-various police officers and Village violated plaintiff's 4th Amendment rights by subjecting him to two separate false arrests for murder of infant, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of two officers, as well as City, with respect to first arrest, after finding that said arrest was supported by probable cause where: (1) plaintiff, who admitted to shaking infant, was last person to have custody of infant prior to his death; and (2) hospital personnel had indicated to police that infant had been victim of shaken-baby syndrome. However, as to subsequent second arrest arising out of same incident, Dist. Ct. erred in granting summary judgment as to one defendant-officer where record showed that: (1) said officer had provided false statements about infant to pathologist, who could have rendered evaluation exonerating plaintiff had he known true facts; and (2) said defendant had obstructed investigation of infant's mother, who was more likely culprit in infant's death and who had history of domestic violence. Moreover, Dist. Ct. erred in granting summary judgment as to two other defendant police officers who continued to interrogate plaintiff at police station in violation of plaintiff's Miranda rights by badgering plaintiff to waive said rights after plaintiff had invoked right to counsel. Said defendants also improperly induced plaintiff to confess to crime by lying to plaintiff about substance of medical report regarding cause of infant's death.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiff's class action alleging that defendant violated Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text messages where record showed that defendant tendered full-relief offer to plaintiff prior to plaintiff moving for class certification. Defendant's offer of full relief rendered instant controversy moot. Ct. rejected plaintiff's argument that mootness doctrine should not apply in circumstances where plaintiff did not have "reasonable opportunity" to seek class certification prior to tender of full-relief offer.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-manufacturer's motion for summary judgment in product liability action alleging that defendant's scaffold was defective after Dist. Ct. had previously granted defendants' motion to bar opinion of plaintiff's expert as being unreliable under Daubert standards. Expert's opinion as to cause of caster break that resulted in collapse of scaffold was based on only one-hour, naked-eye examination of broken scaffold, and expert further failed to test his own design alternatives. Dist. Ct. also did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's continuance motion to obtain substitute expert where discovery had been closed at time of request. Finally, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting summary judgment motion where plaintiff had failed to show that scaffold was defective at time it left defendant's control.

In series of class actions alleging that defendant wrongfully classified plaintiffs as independent contractors, Ct. of Appeals denied defendant's request for issuance of mandamus directing Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to revoke certain remand orders in 12 out of 34 similar class actions where summary judgment orders in remanded cases, as well as in 22 remaining cases had resolved claims regarding plaintiff's independent contractor status, and where remanded cases had other pending issues to be resolved. JPML was not required to issue partial final judgments under Rule 54(b) in remanded cases so as to require that plaintiff take immediate appeals in all 34 cases so as to ensure that any appeal in all 34 cases would come to same appellate circuit. Moreover, defendant had failed to establish entitlement to mandamus relief where procedural course taken by JPML was calculated to prevent piecemeal appeals with respect to remanded cases.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-City officials' motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant denied plaintiff due process by shutting off his water due to his failure to install outside meter. While defendants had failed to strictly comply with Local Rule 56.1 by including legal arguments in summary judgment motion itself rather than in separate memorandum and had failed to separately number paragraphs, Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion by ignoring said violations and giving plaintiff extra time to file substantive response to defendant's factual statement. Moreover, no prejudice arose out of instant violations where plaintiff had failed to supply sufficient evidence to support his underlying claim. Additionally, successor Magistrate Judge had jurisdiction to enter order on instant summary judgment motion where consent to have original Magistrate Judge resolve case contained notice of right to refuse consent for any successor Magistrate Judge to resolve case, and where neither party registered objection to successor Magistrate Judge within applicable 30-day period.