Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Freed and Weiss were the sole managing members of a legal practice, CLG. Freed claims to have provided CLG’s operating capital through loans of $12 million. Under the partnership agreement between the two, Freed was entitled to repayment before CLG could make distributions to other members. According to Freed, shortly after he received partial repayment from CLG in 2011, Weiss began taking steps to terminate Freed’s control of CLG and to create a new limited liability company without him, by moving CLG funds held by Chase into other accounts, to which Freed lacked access. Freed demanded that Chase freeze CLG accounts. Freed contends that Chase employees informed Weiss, who then removed all funds from Chase. Freed sued Weiss in state court, alleging improprieties primarily regarding access to records and funds, breach of fiduciary duties and of the partnership agreement, and seeking a declaration of voluntary termination of CLG. Weiss counterclaimed, seeking to expel Freed from CLG. Freed sued Chase claiming that Chase facilitated Weiss’s unauthorized transfer, tortious interference with contractual rights, and aiding Weiss’s breaches of fiduciary duties. The suit was removed to federal court and Chase brought third-party claims for indemnity or contribution. Freed filed suit in federal court against Weiss, his father, and CLG, asking the court to force CLG to purchase Freed’s distributional interest. The district court found that abstention in the federal court cases was proper and stayed both pending the outcome of the state court proceedings. The Seventh Circuit agreed.View "Freed v. Weiss" on Justia Law

Montanez sued the City of Chicago and Officers Fico and Simon, alleging that Fico used excessive force while arresting him for drinking on a public way and Simon failed to intervene. He sustained minor injuries and sought damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state-law. The state-law claims were dismissed as time-barred. The city conceded its obligation to indemnify, so the section 1983 claims proceeded to trial. Fico was found liable, Simon was cleared, and the jury awarded $1,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000 in punitive damages. Montanez’s lawyers submitted a bill for more than $426,000 in attorneys’ fees and about $6,500 in costs and expenses. The judge scrutinized the bill line-by-line, discounted entries where more than one partner oversaw the same activities, or where the lawyers researched or drafted motions that were never filed, excluded hours spent on a full-day mock trial and entries related to matters that were essentially administrative matters, and reduced the hourly billing rates. After these and other reductions, the final award of costs was $3,051.94 and the court awarded $108,350.87 in fees. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, referring to the city’s “scorched-earth” defense strategy and the need for trial judges to exercise their broad discretion to adjust bloated bills for attorney’s fees after the fact and case-management authority during the litigation. View "Montanez v. Simon" on Justia Law

Arnold, a former officer of two corporate defendants, held significant stock in each. In 1999, Arnold sued both in Illinois state court, claiming shareholder oppression. In 2006, the parties allegedly agreed to settle, but never executed settlement documents. The defendants have not paid any of the $207,500 purportedly required. The court dismissed without deciding whether the case had been settled. A month later, Arnold agreed to sell his stock to KJD for $290,000. KJD advanced $100,000; Arnold represented that he had good title. KJD notified the defendants that it had purchased the stock and wished to inspect the corporate books. They did not respond, but moved to vacate the dismissal, alleging that, under the alleged settlement, Arnold had transferred his stock to the corporations. They also filed suit before a different judge, resulting in a default judgment ordering Arnold to execute settlement papers and comply with the agreement. The Appellate Court affirmed. KJD was never joined as a party. The court stayed proceedings in the original action. Arnold filed a FRCP Rule 22 interpleader action, naming the corporations and KJD, stating that he made no claim to continued ownership and was willing to transfer the stock to whichever defendant the court determined to have superior right. Invoking the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the district court dismissed, but ordered Arnold to return the $100,000 advance payment. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded, reasoning that the interpleader action does not attack the state court judgment itself, so further proceedings are necessary.View "Arnold v. KJD Real Estate, LLC" on Justia Law

PepperBall is a projectile ball filled with a pepper-spray-like irritant. Police departments, private security firms, and comparable organizations are its primary consumers. Advanced Tactical brought a trademark infringement claim against Real Action and its president, Tran. The district court granted a preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over Real Action, which preserved its objection. There was no evidence that Real Action had the necessary minimum contacts with Indiana to support specific jurisdiction. View "Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc." on Justia Law

The underlying suit began 28 years ago and has been to the Supreme Court three times. Defendants who did not settle prevailed and applied for costs under 28 U.S.C. 1920 and were awarded most of what they sought after a district judge held the request under advisement for three years and then retired. The newly assigned judge awarded $63,391.45, less than $2,300 per year of litigation. On appeal, plaintiffs claimed that the defendants took too long to request costs; did not establish that transcripts and copies were “necessarily obtained for use in the case” under 28 U.S.C. 1920; and did not nudge the original judge to rule before he retired. The Seventh Circuit rejected the arguments, stating that the obligation to render timely rulings rests on the judiciary, not the parties. “This litigation has lasted far too long. At last it is over.” View "Nat'l Org. for Women v. Scheidler" on Justia Law

Banks sued her former employer, the Board of Education, and her former supervisor, Gonzales, alleging race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and related violations of federal and state law. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims; 29 after the district court entered judgment, Banks filed “a motion to alter the entry of summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e),” which the district court denied six days later. Banks then filed a notice of appeal. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment. Because Banks missed that deadline, her motion was not effective as a Rule 59(e) motion that could have tolled the time to file a notice of appeal from the judgment. Treating her post‐judgment motion as a Rule 60(b) motion that did not toll the time to appeal the summary judgment, her notice of appeal was timely only as to the district court’s denial of her post‐judgment motion. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying that motion. View " Banks v. Chicago Bd. of Educ." on Justia Law

A class action complaint, filed in state court, alleged that Pushpin acted as an unlicensed debt collector in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and filed 1100 Illinois small‐claims suits, all fraudulent, but that the class (defendants in those suits) sought “no more than $1,100,000.00 in compensatory damages and $2,000,000.00 in punitive damages,” and would ‘incur attorneys’ fees of no more than $400,000.00,” below the $5 million threshold for removal of a state‐court class action to a federal district court under the Class Action Fairness Act. Pushpin removed the case to federal court under the Act, 28 U.S.C. 1453(b), but the district court remanded to state court. The Seventh Circuit reversed, reasoning that the plaintiff did not irrevocably commit to obtaining less than $5 million for the class, and Pushpin’s estimate that the damages recoverable by the class could equal or exceed that amount may be reliable enough to preclude remanding the case to the state court. The lower court’s reasoning that most of the claims were barred by the Rooker‐Feldman rule was a mistake as was a statement that “there is a strong presumption in favor of remand” when a case has been removed under the Class Action Fairness Act. View "Pushpin Holdings, LLC v. Johnson" on Justia Law

A business that manages commercial real estate and its owners were sued in a purported class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, for having paid a “fax blaster” (Business to Business Solutions) to send unsolicited fax advertisements. Aggregate statutory damages would be more than $5 million or, if the violation is determined to be willful or knowing, as much as three times greater. The Seventh Circuit denied leave to appeal class certification in the suit, which is more than five years old. The court noted that it had no knowledge of the value of the defendant-business and that, even if the defendants could prove that they will be forced to settle unless class certification is reversed, they would have to demonstrate a significant probability that the order was erroneous. Rejecting challenges concerning individual class members, the court noted that no monetary loss or injury need be shown to entitle junk‐fax recipient to statutory damages. The adequacy of the class representative was not challenged. View "Wagener Equities, Inc. v. Chapman" on Justia Law

Thomas, an Indiana prisoner, sued prison officials and medical personnel at the Pendleton Correctional Facility under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for deliberate indifference to his epilepsy in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed without prejudice because Thomas did not pay the initial partial filing fee of $8.40, assessed under 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1) in response to his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Thomas claimed that when his payment came due he had no money or income, and that any money he does receive is immediately and automatically deducted by the prison to pay for debts he incurred by printing copies of his complaint. The judge did not respond to Thomas’s letter, but later allowed an appeal. After determining that it had jurisdiction, the Seventh Circuit vacated the dismissal because the judge dismissed the suit without determining if Thomas was at fault for not paying. View "Thomas v. Butts" on Justia Law