Federal Civil Practice

In an interlocutory appeal, the defendants challenged the certification of a statewide plaintiff class in a price-fixing case brought under Wisconsin law. The Seventh Circuit considered whether the district court had a sound basis for concluding that common issues predominated over individual issues so that class certification was appropriate even thought the district court did not address conflicting expert testimony on the issue of antitrust impact. The Seventh Circuit ultimately concluded that the district court was required to engage more fully with conflicting evidence to decide on the question of class certification and vacated and remanded for further consideration on that issue, noting that class certification may be proper. (SYKES and BRENNAN, concurring)

In an interlocutory appeal, the Seventh Circuit considered the provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act that authorizes similarly situated employees to file a lawsuit against an employer. Specifically at issue in the appeal was the amount of showing required in order for plaintiffs to procure a court-issued notice to potential plaintiffs who might opt to join the collective action. The Seventh Circuit clarified that district courts must consider both parties’ evidence with respect to similarity and may issue notice to potential plaintiffs when the named plaintiffs have raised at least a material factual dispute as to the similarity of potential plaintiffs. (LEE, concurring and HAMILTON, concurring in part and separately concurring in part)

Plaintiffs, a group of media and media-related organizations, filed a lawsuit challenging Indiana’s “buffer law,” arguing that it was unconstitutionally vague under the due process clause because it was susceptible to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The “buffer law” made it a crime for a person to knowingly or intentionally approach within 25 feet of a law enforcement officer lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer’s duty after the officer orders the person to stop approaching. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their challenge and issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law and the defendant appealed from the entry of the injunction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding no error in the district court’s decision to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the law. (EASTERBROOK and BRENNAN, concurring)

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit after their were injured in an automobile collision during a police chase in which the plaintiffs were in a vehicle fleeing from police. A jury found in favor of the defendants on all claims and plaintiffs appealed, challenging the district court’s decision on affirmative defenses, jury instructions, and admissibility of evidence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court did not commit legal error or abuse its discretion. (KOLAR and EASTERBROOK, concurring)

The law firm for the plaintiff requested attorneys’ fees after obtaining a favorable determination from the Social Security Administration. The district court awarded only a portion of the attorneys fees contained in a contingency fee agreement between the law firm and the plaintiff. In a prior appeal the Seventh Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by not anchoring its reasonableness analysis on the fee agreement and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court awarded the same amount on the grounds that the contingency fee agreement amount should be reduced to reflect the effective hourly rate. The Seventh Circuit again reversed, finding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately explain its conclusion. The Seventh Circuit remanded with instructions to remit attorneys’ fees in the requested amount.

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit asking the federal court declare that defendant, a well known artist, had created a painting that plaintiffs alleged was purchased from the artist; a contention that the artist denied. The district court ultimately entered judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that it was not painted by the defendant but by an individual with a similar name. The district court also granted the defendant’s motion for sanctions under FRCP 11 and plaintiff appealed the award of sanctions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion despite having denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment earlier in the case, noting that while there can be good faith to prosecute a claim at one stage of litigation, the claim can become frivolous pursuant to the discovery of additional information during litigation. (BRENNAN and KIRSCH, concurring)

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit after their daughter committed suicide while being held in the county jail, alleging inadequate medical treatment, excessive force, and due process violations. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment and the district court ruled favor of the defendants. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the summary judgment order and the district court’s denial of their requests to amend their complaint and to extend deadlines. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court did not commit reversible error. (BRENNAN and PRYOR, concurring)