U.S. Seventh Circuit

Glaser v. Wound Care Consultants, Inc., No. 07-4036

2009-07-02T20:28:41Z

In a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act, district court judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court correctly concluded that the threshold jurisdictional bar of the Act against lawsuits based upon publicly disclosed allegations applied to the suit, as the allegations in the complaint about defendant's billing practices were in fact based on publicly disclosed information and plaintiff failed to show she was an original source of the information used to support the allegations.

Read Glaser v. Wound Care Consultants, Inc., No. 07-4036

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
Argued: April 15, 2008
Decided: July 2, 2009

Judges
Before CUDAHY, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by SYKES, Circuit Judges.

8b5hzdcpku

Fry v. Exelon Corp. Cash Balance Pension Plan, No. 08-1135

2009-07-02T20:25:56Z

In a dispute involving pension benefits, district court judgment is affirmed where under ERISA an age is the normal retirement age because the pension plan's text makes it so, and thus the statutory language allows employers to vary by contract aspects of pension plans and specify a normal retirement age that may differ from typical retirement patterns.

Read Fry v. Exelon Corp. Cash Balance Pension Plan, No. 08-1135

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued: April 3, 2009
Decided: July 2, 2009

Judges
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and EVANS and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge.

Hassan v. Holder, No. 08-1535

2009-07-02T20:23:31Z

Petition for review of an order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture is denied where: 1) the agency's adverse credibility determination, based on material inconsistencies between plaintiff's asylum application and hearing testimony, is supported by substantial evidence; and 2) substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that plaintiff failed to show failed to show past political persecution, and failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution.

Read Hassan v. Holder, No. 08-1535

Appellate Information
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Argued: February 18, 2009
Decided: July 2, 2009

Judges
Before ROVNER, EVANS, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by TINDER, Circuit Judge.

US v. McGraw, No. 08-2705

2009-07-02T20:21:04Z

Conviction for drug possession is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress and finding that defendant voluntarily consented to the officers' search; and 2) the merits of defendant's challenge to his sentencing classification cannot be reached as defendant's plea agreement included an unambiguous waiver of his right to challenge the district court's sentencing determinations.

Read US v. McGraw, No. 08-2705

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.
Argued: January 9, 2009
Decided: July 2, 2009

Judges
Before MANION, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by SYKES, Circuit Judge.

US v. Myers, No. 07-3658

2009-07-01T23:11:54Z

Conviction and sentence for attempted arson is affirmed where: 1) even if the government erred and made improper statements at closing, defendant was not prejudiced by the statements, and thus he failed to show a violation of his right to a fair trial or a Confrontation Clause violation; 2) no error occurred at sentencing and remand is unnecessary as the court considered the guidelines range to be advisory, took into account defendant's apparent change in behavior and job history, and imposed a sentence below the guidelines range; and 3) the court properly considered defendant's acquitted conduct during sentencing as those actions had been proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

Read US v. Myers, No. 07-3658

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued March 31, 2009
Decided July 1, 2009

Judges
Before FLAUM, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by MANION, Circuit Judge.

Trustees of the Chicago Plastering Institute Pension Trust v. Cork Plastering Co., No. 07-3960

2009-07-01T23:09:15Z

In an action brought under the Labor Management Relations Act and ERISA, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the court did not err in admitting the audit report into evidence, as the report was not inadmissible hearsay; 2) the court properly allowed the the auditor's employee to testify about the report as he was qualified to lay a foundation for the admission of the report; and 3) the court's properly denied plaintiff's request to recover their auditors' fees, as plaintiff's did not meet the burden of showing that the requested costs were necessarily incurred and reasonable.

Read Trustees of the Chicago Plastering Institute Pension Trust v. Cork Plastering Co., No. 07-3960

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued December 1, 2008
Decided July 1, 2009

Judges
Before BAUER, ROVNER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by ROVNER, Circuit Judge.

Nelson v. Miller, No. 08-2044

2009-07-01T23:06:21Z

In a prisoner civil rights action brought under the First Amendment, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, district court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff's religious exercise was substantially burdened by the procedural requirements for obtaining a religious diet and by defendant's refusal to grant him a non-meat diet on Fridays and during Lent; 2) the court properly held there was no violation of the Establishment Clause as there were valid neutral reasons for defendant's actions; 3) the court properly held that sovereign immunity bars any suit against defendant in his official capacity as prison chaplain under Section 1983 and RLUIPA; and 4) the court erred in holding determining that the IRFRA allows Illinois prison officials to be sued in their official capacities in federal court. However, before damages are assessed the case is remanded to determine whether defendant's procedures and conduct were in furtherance of a compelling government interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that interest, and whether defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Read Nelson v. Miller, No. 08-2044

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Argued February 25, 2009
Decided July 1, 2009

Judges
Before FLAUM, WILLIAMS, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Flaum, Circuit Judge.

Kerr- McGee Chemical Corp. v. Lefton Iron & Metal Co., No. 03-2991

2009-06-30T22:41:37Z

Appeal of a district court judgment is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, as the judgment was not final in regards to the question of damages and the treatment of insurance proceeds. When the district court decides who gets the benefit of the insurance proceeds, the judgment will then be final and any adversely affected party may appeal.

Read Kerr- McGee Chemical Corp. v. Lefton Iron & Metal Co., No. 03-2991

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Argued APRIL 3, 2009
Decided JUNE 30, 2009

Judges
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and EVANS and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Per Curium Opinion.

US v. Cole, No. 06-2547

2009-06-30T22:38:27Z

Appeal of a sentence imposed by the district court for defendant's drug possession is dismissed where the district court did not nullify defendant's plea agreement when it rejected the drug-quantity stipulations in the agreement and independently quantified the amount of drugs attributable to defendant based on information in the presentence report, and thus the appeal waiver in the plea agreement is enforceable.

Read US v. Cole, No. 06-2547

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.
Argued JUNE 3, 2009
Decided JUNE 30, 2009

Judges
Before KANNE, SYKES, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by SYKES, Circuit Judge.

Stephens v. Erickson, No. 08-1416

2009-06-30T22:35:54Z

In an action for employment discrimination and retaliation, district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to produce enough evidence to support an inference that defendant's failure to promote was in retaliation for his protected activity; 2) the alterations to plaintiff's job were not materially adverse and insufficient to dissuade a reasonable employee from filing a discrimination charge; and 3) the court properly determined that certain comments made by other employees were either hearsay or irrelevant to the issue of whether plaintiff was terminated for a retaliatory purpose.

Read Stephens v. Erickson, No. 08-1416

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued JANUARY 6, 2009
Decided JUNE 30, 2009

Judges
Before KANNE, WOOD, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by KANNE, Circuit Judge.

Von der Ruhr v. Immtech Int'l, Inc., No. 08-1496

2009-06-30T22:33:24Z

In an action for breach of a licensing contract and tortious interference with contract, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the court did not abuse its discretion in precluding plaintiff's lay opinion testimony, as the testimony was not grounded in personal knowledge or experience; 2) there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find against co-defendants Thompson, Parks, and Sorkin and impose personal liability on the tortious interference with contract claim.

Read Von der Ruhr v. Immtech Int'l, Inc., No. 08-1496

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued JANUARY 16, 2009
Decided JUNE 30, 2009

Judges
Before BAUER, FLAUM and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by BAUER, Circuit Judge.

US v. Huffstatler, No. 08-2622

2009-06-30T22:29:34Z

Sentence for producing child pornography is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in sentencing defendant, as the court was not obligated to sentence him below the range recommended by valid sentencing guidelines; and 2) defendant's sentence, though above the guidelines range, was reasonable.

Read US v. Huffstatler, No. 08-2622

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Argued JANUARY 28, 2009
Decided JUNE 30, 2009

Judges
Before BAUER, RIPPLE, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
Per Curium Opinion.

Stainback v. Dixon, No. 08-3563

2009-06-30T22:26:49Z

In a Fourth Amendment action brought against police officers, district court judgment grant of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the court applied an acceptable methodology in addressing the qualified immunity test and evaluating whether the officers' actions violated plaintiff's constitutional right; and 2) the record establishes that the officers' actions were reasonable under the circumstances, and that they did not employ excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Read Stainback v. Dixon, No. 08-3563

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
Argued APRIL 15, 2009
Decided JUNE 30, 2009

Judges
Before FLAUM, RIPPLE and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.

US (ex rel. Lusby) v. Rolls-Royce Corp., No. 08-3593

2009-06-30T22:23:50Z

In an employment termination action brought under the False Claims Act, district court judgment is reversed where: 1) the special status of the United States counsels against reflexive transfer of rules of preclusion from private to public litigation, and thus the resolution of personal employment litigation does not preclude a qui tam action, in which the relator acts as a representative of the public; and 2) plaintiff Lusby's latest proposed complaint alleged fraud with the requisite particularity, as the accusations were not vague and the complaint showed in detail the nature of the charge. The judgment of the district court is affirmed with respect to the claim under 31 U.S.C. sec. 3729(a)(7) as the complaint does not satisfy Rule 9(b).

Read US (ex rel. Lusby) v. Rolls-Royce Corp., No. 08-3593

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
Argued MAY 6, 2009
Decided JUNE 30, 2009

Judges
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and POSNER and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge.

Goderstad v. American Family Mutal Ins. Co., No. 06-3629

2009-06-29T21:05:47Z

In a dispute involving insurance liability coverage, district court judgment is affirmed where defendant has no duty to defend the defendant-seller's as the insurance policy limits coverage to property damage, and the buyers' claim for negligent misrepresentation does not allege property damage caused by an accident.

Read Goderstad v. American Family Mutal Ins. Co., No. 06-3629

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin..
Argued April 7, 2008
Decided June 29, 2009

Judges
Before RIPPLE, WILLIAMS, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by SYKES, Circuit Judge.