Federal Civil Practice

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)

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant and five police officers after her husband died due to a crash caused by a high-speed chase where the suspect’s car crashed into the decedent’s car. Plaintiff alleged that the city failed to train its officers and that this violated her husband’s substantive due process rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and plaintiff appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the officers’ actions in the emergency situation did not support a Fourteenth Amendment claim. (EASTERBROOK and PRYOR, concurring)

The Seventh Circuit considered a constitutional challenge to provisions of Indiana law that prevent retailers of alcoholic beverages located outside the State from shipping wine to Indiana customers. Plaintiff, an Illinois wine retailer, filed a lawsuit contending that the regulatory scheme was unconstitutional under the interstate commerce clause. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants and plaintiff appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in a per curiam opinion based on two separate lines of reasoning contained in separate concurring opinions. (EASTERBROOK, separately concurring and SCUDDER, separately concurring)