Articles Posted in Federal Jurisdiction

by

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago has affirmed a decision by the district court judge regarding circumstantial evidence without an expert witness. In this case, the plaintiffs, Howard Piltch and Barbara Nelson-Piltch, were driving in their 2003 Mercury Mountaineer in 2006 when they were involved in an accident; the airbags of their vehicle did not deploy. After the crash, the couple repaired their car, but did not confirm whether the restraint control module, which monitors a crash and electronically decides whether to deploy airbags, was reset during or after repair work.

One year later, the Piltches were driving the car when it hit a patch of black ice. This caused the car to slide off of the road and hit a wall. On impact, none of the cars’ airbags deployed.

After the second crash, the couple had their Mountaineer repaired at the same repair shop that had repaired the car after the 2006 incident. In 2009, the Piltches sold the car to a mechanic who reprogrammed the vehicle’s black box, wiping out the data that might have been remaining from either of the two crashes.

Continue reading

by

In the model years 2009 and 2010, Toyota’s Corolla has been targeted as a dangerous vehicle because of the electric power steering (ETS) system. In fact, two Toyota Corolla owners, one in New York and one in Pennsylvania, filed suit. The Corolla owners have alleged that the steering system’s defect caused their cars to drift out of control. The lawsuits claim that the steering system defect is a serious safety problem and that Toyota was aware of the problem but did nothing to fix it.

It was alleged in the lawsuit that the defect in the electric power steering system caused a driver to spin out of control on a highway, cross the center line into oncoming traffic before crashing into an embankment. The plaintiffs have alleged that the defect in the electric power steering system is significant and widespread, and they seek to have a class certified by the court.

Toyota, on the other hand, has argued that the court should not allow class certification nationwide because the vehicle shares no common problem. Toyota said the defect in the steering system affects only a small number of Corolla owners. Toyota also said it has reviewed the reports of steering problems and has found that the individual complaints may relate to the way steering feels to them or tire conditions on the particular vehicle.

Continue reading

by

A federal jury has entered an $11 million verdict for victims of the design defect of the 1996 Toyota Camry.

The jurors indicated that Toyota was 60% at fault for the 2006 crash that left two people dead and two seriously injured. They also found that another defendant, Koua Fong Lee, who had insisted that he tried to stop his car before it slammed into another vehicle, was 40% at fault for the crash. Lee and his family members, the family of a girl who died and two others who were seriously injured, sued Toyota Motor Corp. in the United States District Court in Minneapolis, Minn.

The lawsuit alleged this crash was caused by the acceleration defect in Lee’s Toyota. Toyota maintained that there was no design defect and that Lee was negligent and the sole cause of the crash.

Continue reading

by

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago has affirmed a decision by a United States district court judge regarding subject-matter jurisdiction and a voluntary dismissal of a complaint.

Mieczyslaw Kuznar, a native of Poland, moved to the United States leaving his wife, Emilia, and his son, Thomas, behind. While living in the United States, Kuznar married Anna, but never divorced Emilia. Kuznar died intestate in 1995. Anna began collecting spousal benefits from his pension the year of his death.

In 1997, Thomas, by that time an adult, opened a probate estate in the Illinois state court seeking judicial administration of his father’s estate. Thomas was acting on his mother’s behalf; she continued to live in Poland.

Continue reading

by

Robert Lodholtz was seriously injured in 2011 while working at a plant owned by Pulliam Enterprises in Indiana. Lodholtz filed a personal-injury lawsuit against Pulliam in the Indiana state court. Pulliam called on Granite State Insurance Co., its primary liability insurer, along with New Hampshire Insurance Co., to defend and indemnify it against the lawsuit.

Granite State refused to indemnify Pulliam stating that Lodholtz as an employee should pursue his claim for worker’s compensation. Lodholtz disagreed arguing that he was employed by another company while he worked at Pulliam’s plant and therefore had no basis for a worker’s compensation claim.

Pulliam chose not to file an answer to the complaint, so Lodholtz moved for default judgment, which was granted. Lodholtz then agreed with Pulliam not to pursue the default judgment and in return Pulliam assigned to Lodholtz its rights against Granite State. Granite State then moved to intervene in Lodholtz’s lawsuit. The Indiana state court denied the motion to intervene.

Continue reading

by

USPLabs LLC, which is the maker of dietary sports supplements purchased over the counter, is now asking to consolidate nine federal lawsuits that have been brought against the company by individual injured plaintiffs. The company makes the product OxyElite Pro, which has been associated with liver injuries and hepatitis.  The motion to consolidate was brought before the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in the Multi-District Litigation (MDL). USPLabs is a defendant in lawsuits pending against it in California, Florida, Hawaii, Pennsylvania and Texas.

There are at least six personal injury lawsuits pending as well as three proposed class-action lawsuits. It was alleged that OxyElite Pro and the product Jack3d contained unsafe ingredients or adulterated ingredients as defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The unsafe ingredient, known as DMAA, contains two substances that have been associated with fatalities and liver failure. USPLabs is located in Dallas, Texas, which has been named in these lawsuits along with GNC Holdings Inc., which has partnered with USPLabs in marketing these dietary supplement products.

Continue reading

by

Hennessy Industries was a car part manufacturer. It was sued frequently for asbestos-related personal injury claims. Hennessy sought insurance coverage for these claims from National Union Fire Insurance Co. The companies entered into a cost-sharing agreement in 2008. However, as the lawsuits and claims came in, Hennessy asked National Union to indemnify its settlements and defense costs. To resolve their differences about what was owed, Hennessy demanded arbitration under the agreement. Illinois law would be applied.

Hennessy filed a lawsuit against National Union under the Illinois Insurance Code, 215 ILCS 5/155(1), which provides that, in cases involving vexatious and unreasonable delay, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, other costs, plus an additional amount.

Hennessy claimed that National Union’s delays in providing coverage were vexatious and unreasonable. The federal district court judge in Chicago declined to dismiss the case, acknowledging a provision that “the arbitrator shall not be empowered or have jurisdiction to award punitive damages, fines or penalties,” but held that Hennessy’s claim arose under statutory law rather than under the cost-sharing agreement.

Continue reading

by

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago has dismissed an appeal from a U.S. District Court judge. In an extremely sad case, Robert Lindner’s parents, Burton and Zorine Lindner, were driving under a bridge near north suburban Glenview, Ill., when a Union Pacific freight train derailed overhead. The derailment caused the collapse of the bridge crushing the Lindners in their car. Their son brought a lawsuit against Union Pacific and a wrongful death action in Illinois state court alleging that Union Pacific’s negligence caused the accident and his parents’ wrongful deaths.

At the time the lawsuit was filed, there was complete diversity between the parties. That means that the residencies of the plaintiffs and the residencies of the defendants must be of different states. The decedents were residents and citizens of Illinois. The residency determines diversity jurisdiction. Mr. Lindner was acting as a representative of the estate.

Union Pacific is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Omaha, Neb. Union Pacific removed the case to the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago because of the complete diversity of the parties.

Continue reading

by

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago has affirmed the dismissal of a fraud case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Patrick Camasta filed a lawsuit against Joseph A. Bank Clothiers Inc. claiming that prior to making purchases at the company’s far north suburban store in Deer Park, Ill., that he saw an advertisement about “sale prices” for certain items.

Camasta’s complaint did not specify when or where he saw the advertisement, what exactly the advertisement said, what the “sale prices” were or what particular merchandise was eligible for the sale.

At the Deer Park Joseph A. Bank store, Camasta found that there was a promotion in which customers were able to buy one shirt and get two for free. Camasta purchased six shirts for $167. After his purchases, Camasta alleged that he learned that Bank’s practice was to advertise normal retail prices as normal price reductions. Camasta alleged but for this fraudulent retail tactic, he would not have purchased the six shirts.

Continue reading

by

In 1952, the owner of a parcel of land in Illinois granted a pipeline operator an easement for two pipelines to cross his land. The first pipeline was built immediately.

The easements specified that the second pipeline, if constructed, was required to be built within ten feet of the first pipeline. The pipeline operator promised the landowner that the land would remain farmable.

In 2012, the current pipeline operator notified the landowner that it planned to build the second pipeline. The owner responded with a lawsuit to quiet title. The pipeline operator removed the case to the federal district court under diversity jurisdiction.

Continue reading