Byline: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF
7th Circuit Digests
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Antoinette Wonsey v. City of Chicago, et al.
Officials: BAUER, BRENNAN, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.
Focus: 4th Amendment Violation
Antoinette Wonsey's Chicago home attracted two types of visitors: tourists and police. The tourists came for short-term lodging, which Wonsey sublet through Airbnb. The police first came after an Airbnb guest reported a theft at Wonsey's home. Five days later, police showed up again to help city examiners during a building inspection. Claiming these two police encounters amounted to Fourth Amendment violations, Wonsey sued the City of Chicago and several police officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal, Wonsey submits a bare explanation of the police encounters, and she makes no effort to connect them with a cognizable Fourth Amendment claim. Because Wonsey fails to show any reason why the district court's judgment should be disturbed, we affirm.
Affirmed
Full Text
[divider]
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Henrikas Malukas v. William P. Barr
Officials: EASTERBROOK, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Immigration Removal Order
Henrikas Malukas, a citizen of Lithuania, entered the United States in 1992 on a tourist visa and did not leave when it expired. In 1995 he was convicted of several weapons-related felonies and sentenced to 52 months in prison. While he was imprisoned, immigration officials began removal proceedings. Malukas applied for discretionary relief as the spouse of a U.S. citizen, but the immigration judge (and later the Board of Immigration Appeals) concluded that his criminal conduct outweighed whatever equities his family and financial ties to the United States supplied.
The Board's final order was entered in July 2003, and Malukas did not seek judicial review. He did file a timely motion for reconsideration, arguing that his criminal conduct should not have been deemed such a high obstacle to relief. The Board denied that motion in September 2003, and again Malukas did not seek judicial review.
To the extent that the Board denied the motion to reconsider and reopen its decision of 2003, the petition for review is denied. To the extent that the Board declined to reopen the proceedings sua sponte, the petition for review is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Petition Denied
Full Text
[divider]
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: George Walker v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., et al.
Officials: FLAUM, SYKES, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Prisoner 8th Amendment Violation
George Walker is an inmate at Stateville Correctional Center. He has an incurable motor neuron disease called primary lateral sclerosis ("PLS") that causes weakness in his voluntary muscles. Walker alleges that his healthcare providers at StatevilleWexford Health Sources and Dr. Saleh Obaisiwere deliberately indifferent to his medical needs after he underwent spinal surgery in March 2011. Specifically, Walker alleges defendants failed to: (1) ensure he received proper follow-up care after his surgery, and (2) allowed undue delays in his treatment by outside experts. Defendants' failures, he asserts, delayed his diagnosis and caused him to suffer from the undiagnosed PLS in the interim. Defendants successfully moved for summary judgment on all of Walker's claims. We affirm.
Affirmed
Full Text
[divider]
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Chicago Studio Rental, Inc., et al. v. Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, et al.
Officials: ROVNER, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Sherman Act Violation
For nearly 30 years, Chicago Studio Rental, Incorporated and Chicago Studio City Real Estate Holdings, LLC (collectively, "Chicago Studio") operated the only film studio in Chicago, Illinois. That changed around 2010 when Chicago Film Studio Holdings, LLC and Chicago Film Studio Industrial Real Estate Holdings, LLC (collectively, "Cinespace") opened a new studio. Within a handful of years, Cinespace rapidly expanded its studio to include 26 more stages and 24 times more floor space than Chicago Studio's facility. Chicago Studio could not keep up, failed to attract production business, and ultimately stopped making a profit.
Chicago Studio sought to blame others for its demise and filed this action against the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, Illinois Film Office, and Betsy Steinbergthree Illinois state actors responsible for promoting the Illinois film industry. Chicago Studio alleged that Defendants unlawfully steered state incentives and business to Cinespace in violation of the Sherman Act and equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Sherman Act and due process claims. It later granted summary judgment on the equal protection claim. Chicago Studio now appeals these decisions on the Sherman Act and equal protection claims.
We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the Sherman Act claim because Chicago Studio failed to adequately plead an antitrust injury. The complaint merely alleges injuries to Chicago Studio, not to competition. We also conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment on the equal protection claim. Chicago Studio and Cinespace are not similarly situated, and there was a rational basis for Steinberg's conduct. We further find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking Chicago Studio's additional statement of facts for noncompliance.
Affirmed
Full Text
[divider]
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Marvin Abernathy v. Eastern Illinois Railroad Company
Case No.: 18-2068; 18-2153
Officials: KANNE, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Judgment Costs
Plaintiff Marvin Abernathy was injured while working for defendant Eastern Illinois Railroad Company. He sued under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. 51 et seq., alleging that the Railroad negligently failed to provide reasonably safe working conditions by failing to provide appropriate equipment for the job he was doing when he was hurt.
A jury awarded Abernathy $525,000 in damages. The Railroad moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. The district court denied both requests, and the Railroad has appealed, raising a host of issues. Abernathy has filed a cross-appeal asserting that the district court erred by not awarding him sufficient costs to cover his expert witness fees. We affirm Judge Myerscough's decisions in all respects.
Affirmed
Full Text
[divider]
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Priscilla Rainey v. Jayceon T. Taylor
Case No.: 16-4153; 18-2990
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and FLAUM and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Court Error Denial of Continuance Damages
Rapper Jayceon Taylor, better known as "The Game," starred in a VH1 television show called She's Got Game, an imitation of the long-running reality dating series The Bachelor. While filming in Chicago in 2015, Taylor took contestant Priscilla Rainey on an off-camera date at a suburban sports bar. There Taylor sexually assaulted her by repeatedly lifting her skirt, grabbing her bare buttocks and vagina, and "juggling" her breasts in front of a large crowd of onlookers.
Rainey sued Taylor for sexual battery. Taylor did not take the litigation seriously. He evaded process, trolled Rainey on social media, dodged a settlement conference, and did not bother to show up at trial. His attorney asked for a continuance, but the judge denied that request, dismissing Taylor's proffered excuse as an elaborate ruse. The judge instructed the jurors that they could infer from Taylor's absence that his testimony would have been unfavorable to him. The jury returned a verdict for Rainey, awarding $1.13 million in compensatory damages and $6 million in punitive damages.
Taylor moved for a new trial, challenging the denial of a continuance, the missing-witness instruction, and the general weight of the evidence. Alternatively, he sought a remittitur of damages. The judge denied the motions. Taylor appeals, reprising the arguments in his post-trial motions and adding a claim of evidentiary error.
We affirm. District judges have wide discretion to...
