Federal Civil Practice

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit for breach of contract after Capital One resigned as custodian of plaintiffs’ individual retirement account funds and transferred them to a successor custodian. Plaintiff alleged that Capital One acted imprudently in choosing a successor custodian that would pay less than the plaintiffs’ investments had previously earned. The district court granted judgment for defendant Capital One relying on a clause exculpating Capital One from liability for any loss caused by successor decisions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, but on different grounds, finding that Capital One did not break any promise it made to the plaintiffs. (SCUDDER and KIRSCH, concurring)

A class of prisoners in state prison sued the department’s director, its director of health services, and the governor in their official capacities for providing inadequate medical and dental care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The class was certified and the parties settled the case with an agreed entry of a consent decree and, after additional litigation, the district court approved an implementation plan. The Seventh Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction defendant’s appeal of a district court order denying a motion to strike a stipulation from the consent decree and an order granting plaintiffs’ motion to extend the consent decreed, affirmed the district court’s order denying in part and granting in part IDOC’s motion to excise the plan from the consent decree and affirmed the district court’s order denying IDOC’s motion to terminate the implementation plan. (EASTERBROOK and MALDONADO, concurring)

The Seventh Circuit considered two questions of federal jurisdictional law related to the scope of the court’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) to review an order remanding part, but not all of a case, to state court following the removal to federal court of a different part of the case under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442. The district court faced with these jurisdictional issues entered an order retaining jurisdiction over a subpoena proceeding but remanded a property dispute to the state court. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that the district court did not err in retaining jurisdiction over subpoena proceedings but not over the broader dispute between the parties. (BRENNAN and MALDONADO, concurring)

Plaintiff borrowed money from the defendant at a high interest rate and later sued the defendants under state and federal law. Defendants sought to enforce an arbitration provision in their loan contracts. The district court denied the motion to compel arbitration and defendants appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that there was no mutual assent where the arbitration agreement directed the arbitrator to apply a body of law that did not exist and which the defendants maintained a unilateral ability to invent and that there was no indication that the plaintiffs intended to agree to those terms. (PRYOR and MALDONADO, concurring)

Plaintiff filed multiple lawsuits against online vendors for allegedly infringing on her registered trademark. The defendants failed to appear in district court and the court entered default judgment against them. Defendants eventually appeared and moved to vacate the default judgment, arguing that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion and defendants appealed. The Seventh Circuit found that the district court erred in finding that the defendants sold products to state residents and that the remaining facts were insufficient to support a finding of personal jurisdiction. (ROVNER and MALDONADO, concurring)

Plaintiff, who was present in the country unlawfully for more than one year, sought a waiver of inadmissibility in an attempt to be eligible to obtain a family-based visa. The agency denied her application of waiver and she challenged the agency’s decision in federal court. The district court dismissed the claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and plaintiff appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that the applicable federal statute unequivocally precludes judicial review of all agency decisions as to waivers, including eligibility determinations. (EASTERBROOK and TAIBLESON, concurring)