Articles Posted in Federal Law

by

Shuffle Tech made automatic card-shuffling equipment for the consumer market and particularly for casinos. In 2010, Shuffle Tech and Wolff Gaming, a distributor of the equipment, signed a letter of intent that expressed their mutual commitment to proceed with a draft agreement regarding product development and distribution.

The agreement laid out a deal in which Shuffle Tech and Wolff Gaming would collaborate to develop a casino-grade shuffling machine. In return for providing financial assistance, Wolff would become the exclusive equipment distributor in the Western Hemisphere.

The next year, but before the new equipment was developed, Shuffle Tech wrote to Wolff proposing that the companies part ways and settle all outstanding business. Several months later, Shuffle Tech filed a lawsuit in the federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that the draft agreement was not an enforceable contract, that the letter of intent was enforceable and that Wolff had broken the letter of intent agreement.

Continue reading

by

Gamesa Technology Corp. entered into a contract with Minnesota-based Outland Renewable Energy to provide maintenance for Gamesa’s wind turbines. Iberdrola Renewables Inc. runs the Gamesa-made turbines at the Cayuga Wind Farm located in Livingston County, Ill.

While servicing a Cayuga turbine, one of Outland’s employees, Aaron McCoy, was electrocuted when the turbine unexpectedly re-energized. McCoy filed a personal injury lawsuit in state court against Iberdrola Renewables and Gamesa. The case was removed from state court to federal court on diversity of citizenship grounds. Iberdrola Renewables impleaded Outland Renewable Energy LLC, claiming indemnification based on the contract and the Illinois Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act.

Outland then filed 22 counterclaims, which included indemnification raising federal and state anti-trust claims and other state law claims. Outland was not successful in seeking a preliminary injunction against Gamesa’s allegedly unfair competitive practices.

Continue reading

by

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago has reversed a decision of a U.S. district court judge regarding whether a case should be remanded back to an Illinois state court. This case arises out of the bankruptcy of a company known as Parmalat. Parmalat was a large Italian food and dairy company that entered bankruptcy in Italy in 2013. Enrico Bondi was appointed “extraordinary commissioner,” which is the Italian version of a bankruptcy trustee.

In 2004, Bondi initiated in the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court, a proceeding under Section 304 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to “enjoin the commencement” of a lawsuit against Parmalat with respect to property involved in the Italian bankruptcy.

After filing the lawsuit in the Southern District of New York’s Bankruptcy Court, Bondi filed a separate lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County against Grant Thornton International, an accounting firm. That lawsuit claimed that Grant Thornton was responsible for Parmalat’s collapse through its involvement in fraudulent audits of Parmalat’s books in violation of Illinois law.

Continue reading

by

The federal court rules are different than those in Illinois. Lawyers who may be used to operating under the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure need to be aware of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a), which says, “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment.” Under the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS 5/2-1202(c) and 5/2-1203(a), one is allowed 30 days to ask a state court judge to reconsider a judgment.

Unfortunately for Patricia Banks and her lawyer, she may have been following the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure rather than Federal Rule 59 when she asked the federal district court judge to reconsider the summary judgment it entered against her and in favor of the defendants.

Banks sued her former employer, the Chicago Board of Education, and her former supervisor, Florence Gonzalez, alleging race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related violations of federal and state law. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Continue reading

by

The Paxil drug maker, GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (GSK) is defending product-liability lawsuits in Chicago’s federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois. GSK manufactures the antidepressant Paxil, which is the brand-name of paroxetine hydrochloride.

In one of the many lawsuits that are pending, a 2010 suicide took place just six days after the man started to take the generic version of Paxil. The wife of the decedent filed a lawsuit in federal court under diversity jurisdiction against GSK and Mylane, who is the maker of paroxetine, which was part of the medicine taken by the decedent.

The lawsuit alleged that the paroxetine label used at the time of the decedent’s death failed to warn users of an increased risk of suicide in adults.

Continue reading

by

Advanced Tactical manufactures and sells PepperBall projectile irritants. The product, PepperBalls, resemble paintballs, but PepperBalls contain irritants and are designed to be used for crowd control by police, private security firms and similar organizations.

Advanced Tactical was headquartered in Indiana, though the company had at least one office in California. Advanced Tactical became the manufacturer of PepperBall items after it acquired trademark and other property in a foreclosure sale from a company called PepperBall Technologies Inc.

During the foreclosure sale, the chief operating officer of one of the PepperBall suppliers contacted Real Action Paintball Inc., a California company. The chief operating officer of this supplier asked Real Action whether it was interested in acquiring irritant projectiles. A deal was reached between the supplier and Real Action.

Continue reading

by

A class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a window manufacturer. The basis for the reversal of the approved $90 million settlement for the class-action lawsuit claiming defective windows was due to inequities with respect to the attorney fees of approximately $11 million; meanwhile, the clients — the consumers — would get less than $8.5 million in total.

According to a section of the court’s opinion written by Justice Richard A. Posner, the “class counsel sold out the class.” The settlement was approved by the district court judge and has now been reversed.

The class-action lawsuit claimed that casement windows manufactured between 1991 and 2006 for Pella Corp.’s “Pro-Line Series” had a design defect.

Continue reading

by

Allen Plyler had purchased and installed a Whirlpool microwave oven for his home. Seven years later, in October 2006, Plyer used the microwave to heat up some food. Eight hours later, Plyer was awakened by a fire that began in the microwave. He tried to put out the fire but suffered physical and emotional injuries.

As a result of his injuries, Plyler filed a lawsuit against Whirlpool claiming strict product liability and negligent recall. At trial, the Whirlpool global product safety director testified about the defect in some microwaves that Whirlpool had recalled. The corporate product safety director testified that the microwave would catch fire only if it contained food splatters and was running immediately before the fire. Plyler testified at trial that the microwave was clean and wasn’t in use before the fire started.

The jury found in favor of Whirlpool on both the claim for strict product liability and negligent recall; Plyler moved for a new trial. The federal magistrate judge who considered the post-trial motion for a new trial concluded that a rational jury could have accepted the product safety director’s testimony, combined with Plyler’s testimony about the state of the microwave, and could conclude that Whirlpool was not responsible for Plyler’s injuries. The court also noted that the jury could have reasonably rejected Plyler’s argument that Whirlpool should have made additional efforts to notify him of the recall.

Continue reading

by

Wisconsin has a long history of protecting private and public labor unions. In fact, before 2011, Wisconsin granted broad protections and privileges to public-sector unions. This all changed when the Wisconsin legislature passed a new budget bill known as Act 10. This act reduced state and municipal employers’ collective-bargaining obligations to non-public safety employees in the public sector.

In a lawsuit brought by two public employee unions and an individual union member, the defendants argued that the changes by the Wisconsin legislature infringed on their First Amendment petition and association rights, and that Act 10 denied the union members equal protection under the law.

The U.S. District Court granted the state’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and the unions, the plaintiffs, brought this appeal.

Continue reading

by

The 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago has affirmed a decision dismissing a copyright claim brought by Catherine Conrad, who was a self-employed singing and dancing entertainer. Conrad calls herself the “Banana Lady” and performs wearing a costume in the shape of a giant banana.

Conrad was hired by several credit unions to perform a “singing telegram” at a credit union trade association event. Conrad claimed that she told the arrangers that members of the audience were not to take photos or video of her performing except for their own personal use. The exception to the rule that she imposed was that postings on Facebook pages would be allowed.

In Conrad’s pro se lawsuit brought against the credit union, she alleged that the organizers did not inform the audience of these restrictions until after she completed her performance. As a result, she claimed several audience members took photos and videos during the performance and posted them to the Internet.

Continue reading