Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Qualified Immunity
| W.D. Wis.
Davis v. Allen, No. 23-1838
(August 14, 2024)
(PRYOR)
Appeal dismissed.
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against a sheriff’s deputy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the deputy violated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights by using unreasonable and excessive force during an arrest. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that his actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances and that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, finding that it did not have jurisdiction over the question of qualified immunity because it could not consider that issue until factual disputes were resolved by the factfinder. (LEE, concurring)
|
Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Federal Jurisdiction
| C.D. Ill.
Illinois v. 3M Company, No. 23-3031
(August 7, 2024)
(KIRSCH)
Affirmed.
The State of Illinois filed a lawsuit against defendant, which operates manufacturing facilities in the state, alleging violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, Illinois Fish and Aquatic Life Code, and the Illinois Wildlife Code. The State also brought claims under several common law theories. Defendant removed the action to federal district court citing the federal officer removal statute and the plainitiff moved to remand the case back to state court. The district granted the plaintiff’s motion and defendant appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the defendant could not satisfy the fourth element of the four-factor test for removal under the federal officer removal statute where it could not present a colorable federal government contractor defense because that defense was irrelevant under the plaintiff’s theory of recovery. (ST. EVE And KOLAR, concurring)
|
Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Federal Jurisdiction
| E.D. Wis.
Peshek v. Johnson, No. 23-2303
(August 5, 2024)
(SCUDDER)
Affirmed.
Plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit alleging violations under the Fourteenth Amendment after the State found that he was eligible for supervised release after being civilly committed as a sexual violent person, but failed to find him suitable housing so that he could actually be released. The district court abstained from exercising jurisdiction to avoid interfering with ongoing state court proceedings intended to identify a suitable housing arrangement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, but on different grounds, finding that the federal court lacked jurisdiction because the defendant, the Secretary of the Department of Health Services, could not provide plaintiff with the relief he sought. (SYKES and BRENNAN, concurring)
|
Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Federal Jurisdiction
| N.D. Ill., Eastern Div.
Ray v. Tabriz, No. 23-3285
(August 2, 2024)
(KIRSCH)
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded.
Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against medical providers in Illinois state court alleging medical malpractice and ultimately settled with all but one of the defendants. After the settlement, the plaintiff’s medical insurance company asserted a reimbursement lien under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act, which states that insurance carriers are entitled to full reimbursement for benefits paid to an enrollee to treat an injury if the enrollee receives a monetary recovery from a third party. The plaintiffs filed a motion for lien adjudication that asserted the Illinois common fund doctrine and the health insurance carrier removed the case to federal court. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand that was initially denied by the district court but later granted pursuant to a motion to reconsider. The carrier appealed the remand order, arguing that the federal court had federal question jurisdiction over the entire case and that the motion for adjudication was removable under the federal officer removal statute. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that the case did not involve a uniquely federal interest that supported federal question jurisdiction and that the district court properly held that it did not have jurisdiction on that basis. However, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court order regarding federal officer removal finding that removal was proper because the carrier had satisfied all four elements for federal officer removal and that the district court should exercise its jurisdiction over the motion for lien adjudication. (ST. EVE and KOLAR, concurring)
|
Federal 7th Circuit / Civil
Sanctions
| E.D. Wis.
Mazurek v. Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc., Nos. 22-1743 through 22-1758
(August 2, 2024)
(JACKSON-AKIWUMI)
Affirmed.
A group of employees filed a lawsuit against their employer for failing to pay them for time spent working just before or after their shifts. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant after finding that the lawsuits were based on “vague recollections” and “fragmentary evidence.” Defendant then moved for sanctions by arguing that the lawsuit was frivolous. The district court denied the motion for sanctions and defendant appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that there was "just" enough factual and legal to support the plaintiffs’ claims and that the defendant’s characterization of the conduct of plaintiffs’ counsel was not supported by the record. (SCUDDER, concurring and KIRSCH, dissenting)
|
|