Federal Civil Practice

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Town of Wheatland as well as current and former town officials alleging that the defendants violated their constitutional rights by engaging in a harassment campaign. According to the allegations of the complaint this harassment included, among other things, complaints about the plaintiffs’ businesses by town officials, the unlawful arrest of plaintiffs, failures to respond to plaintiffs’ requests for emergency services, the defendants’ designation of a private driveway as a public road, and excessive and inaccurate increases of property tax assessments with a subsequent foreclosure action to collect unpaid taxes and interest. The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ tax assessment and road claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, abstained from exercising jurisdiction over the foreclosure claims, and dismissed the remaining claims for failure to state a claim. The Seventh Circuit reversed dismissal of the plaintiffs’ road claims but affirmed the dismal of the plaintiffs’ other claims. (SCUDDER and ST. EVE, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons seeking an order requiring the BOP to change its dietary policies and for monetary damages after his approval for a kosher diet program was suspended when he purchased turkey in an violation of the prison’s diet program. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Seventh Circuit affirmed as modified, finding that plaintiff did not adequately allege standing to pursue his claim for injunctive relief and that federal sovereign immunity barred his claim for monetary damages. (SCUDDER and KIRSCH, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a section 1983 action alleging that he was improperly discharged from his position as a university football coach as a result of personal speech that was protected by the First Amendment. Defendants argued that the complaint should be dismissed because they had qualified immunity as a state university. The district court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss as premature and defendants appealed. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked appellate jurisdiction where the district court had concluded that factual development was necessary before it could resolve the question of qualified immunity. (EASTERBROOK and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against an online company that offered monetary loans alleging violations of Illinois usury statutes and the federal Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act. More than a year after the lawsuit was filed, defendants asked the district court to refer the case to an arbitrator citing an arbitration provision in the lending agreements signed by the plaintiff. The district court refused, finding that defendants had waived their right to arbitrate by participating in litigation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the right to arbitrate was waived and that the issue was not moot, as had been argued by the defendants shortly before oral argument. (ROVNER, concurring and EASTERBROOK, separately concurring)

Plaintiff alleged that its Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the City of Waukegan did not advance its casino proposal for licensing consideration. The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, reasoning that tribal entities like the plaintiff were not proper plaintiffs under federal law and that plaintiff's claim failed as a matter of law. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that plaintiff could not carry its heavy burden of establishing that the process was unconstitutional as a class-of-one plaintiff. The appellate court further noted that while the city’s casino review process may have been flawed, the absence of perfection in a process is not sufficient to prove intentional discrimination. (ST. EVE, concurring and SCUDDER, separately concurring)

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against her former employer after she was terminated for refusing to be vaccinated against Covid-19. The district court sent the dispute to arbitration and dismissed the lawsuit. Plaintiff appealed the order to arbitrate, arguing that the arbitration agreement she entered into with her employer was not enforceable for a variety of reasons that the district court explained were frivolous and without merit. The Seventh Circuit agreed and affirmed. The Seventh Circuit also granted the defendant’s motion for sanctions and directed the plaintiff to reimburse defendant for the legal expenses it incurred on appeal. (BRENNAN and ST. EVE, concurring)