Weekly Case Digests August 12, 2019 August 16, 2019.

Byline: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF

7th Circuit Digests

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Alarm Detection Systems, Incorporated, et al. v. Village of Schaumburg, et al.

Case No.: 18-3316

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and SCUDDER and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Anti-trust Violation

This appeal is one of two we decide today regarding the market for commercial fire-alarm services in Chicago's suburbs. The current case takes us to the Village of Schaumburg.

In 2016, Schaumburg passed an ordinance that requires commercial buildings to send fire-alarm signals directly to the local 911 dispatch center. That decision, sensible as it may seem, comes at an economic cost: as implemented, the ordinance threatens to exclude from the market all but one alarm- system provider. This is because the area's dispatch center, Northwest Central Dispatch System ("NWCDS"), has an al- most decade-old exclusive arrangement with Tyco Integrated Security, LLC. To send signals to NWCDS, then, local buildings must also use Tyco equipmentor at least that is what Schaumburg has told local building owners.

A few of Tyco's competitors (the "Alarm Companies" or "Companies") see in these facts a profit-driven conspiracy among Schaumburg, NWCDS, and Tyco to centralize the local market for fire-alarm services. The Alarm Companies filed this suit charging violations of constitutional, antitrust, and state tort law. The district court, however, dismissed the case, concluding that the complaint's allegations failed to state a claim.

We agree in large part. With one exception, the claims, and the underlying conspiracy, are not pleaded with enough facts to cross the line from speculative to plausible. We therefore affirm in large part and reverse and remand in part.

Affirmed in part. Reversed and remanded in part.

Full Text

[divider]

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: American Homeland Title Agency, Inc., et al. v. Stephen W. Robertson

Case No.: 18-3293

Officials: EASTERBROOK, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Penalties

During a random audit, the Indiana Department of Insurance ("the Department") discovered that American Homeland Title Agency had committed hundreds of regulatory violations. After several rounds of negotiation, American Homeland agreed to pay a fine and relinquish its licenses. But just a few months later, American Homeland sued the Department's commissioner, Stephen Robertson, for allegedly discriminating against the company because of its out-of-state residency.

We need not reach the merits of that discrimination claim. In its agreement with the Department, American Homeland consented to the same penalties it now challenges. It hasn't provided a valid reason to void that agreement, so judicial review is unavailable. We therefore affirm summary judgment in favor of Robertson.

Affirmed

Full Text

[divider]

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Matthew Carello v. Aurora Policemen Credit Union

Case No.: 18-2887

Officials: EASTERBROOK, SYKES, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.

Focus: ADA Violation

Matthew Carello sued the Aurora Policemen Credit Union, alleging that accessibility barriers to the Credit Union's website violate his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court dismissed the claim, holding that Carello lacked standing to sue. We agree.

Affirmed

Full Text

[divider]

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Neringa Venckiene v. United States of America

Case No.: 18-2529

Officials: BAUER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges

Focus: Abuse of Discretion Extradition

Lithuania seeks extradition of petitioner Neringa Venckiene from the United States to prosecute her for several alleged offenses arising from a custody battle over Venckiene's niece. After a hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3184, a magistrate judge certified Venckiene as extraditable and the Secretary of State granted the extradition. Venckiene moved the magistrate judge for a temporary stay of her extradition, which was granted. She then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court challenging both the magistrate judge's certification order and the Secretary's decision. She also asked the district court to stay her extradition, but the district court denied that request.

In her habeas corpus petition, Venckiene claims the magistrate judge erred in two ways: failing to apply the political offense exception in the Lithuania-United States extradition treaty to her case, and finding probable cause that she was guilty of the offenses charged. Venckiene also claims that the Secretary of State's decision to grant the extradition violated her constitutional right to due process and failed to consider that Venckiene might be subject to what we have called "particularly atrocious procedures or punishments," see In re Burt, 737 F.2d 1477, 1487 (7th Cir. 1984), if she is returned to Lithuania.

This appeal challenges directly only the district judge's denial of Venckiene's request to extend the stay of her extradition, but that challenge necessarily implicates the merits of her habeas petition. We affirm the district court's denial of a stay. In Part I, we explain the extradition process, including the applicable treaty provisions and the limited scope of the judicial role. In Part II, we summarize what we know about events in Lithuania leading to this case. In Part III, we review the United States legal proceedings thus far. In Part IV, we analyze the legal issues presented, considering in Part IV-A Venckiene's challenges to the magistrate judge's order and in Part IV-B her challenges to the Secretary's decision, and finally in Parts IV-C and IV-D other factors relevant to Venckiene's stay request.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Venckiene's motion to stay her extradition. The order of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed

Full Text

[divider]

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Eddie R. Bradley v. Village of University Park, Illinois, et al.

Case No.: 16-3456

Officials: MANION, ROVNER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Due Process Violation

In 2015, the Village of University Park's mayor and board fired police chief Eddie Ray Bradley without any notice of good cause or any form of hearingi.e., the procedural protections owed to Bradley under the United States Constitution. Bradley sued the village and mayor in federal court under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving him of a property interest in his job without due process of law. He also asserted several state-law claims. The district court dismissed Bradley's federal due process claim on the pleadings. We reverse.

Reversed and remanded

Full Text

[divider]

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Delores Henry, et al. v. Melody Hulett, et al.

Case No.: 16-4234

Officials: EASTERBROOK and MANION, Circuit Judges, and JOHN Z. LEE, District Judge.

Focus: 4th Amendment Violation

Members of a certified class contend that during 2011 female inmates at an Illinois prison were strip-searched as part of a training exercise for cadet guards. The district court summarized the allegations this way: [Plaintiffs] were required to stand naked, nearly shoulder to shoulder with 8-10 other inmates in a room where they could be seen by others not conducting the searches, including male officers. Menstruating inmates had to remove their tampons and sanitary pads in front of others, were not given replacements, and many got blood on their bodies and clothing and blood on the floor. The naked inmates had to stand barefoot on a floor dirty with menstrual blood and raise their breasts, lift their hair, turn around, bend over, spread their buttocks and vaginas, and cough. 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194393 at *6 (C.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2016).

Plaintiffs maintained that such an inspectionunnecessary for security and conducted in an offensive mannerviolated their rights under both the Fourth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment, applied to the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1983. The most one can say for plaintiffs is that judges, including those within the Seventh Circuit, have disagreed about whether the Fourth Amendment ever prevents guards from viewing naked prisoners. Johnson was decided over a dissent. A concurring opinion in King expressed doubt about the majority's analysis, as a concurring opinion in Peckham expressed doubt about the analysis of the majority there.

It has been 35 years since the Justices last considered the extent to which convicted prisoners have rights under the Fourth Amendment while still inside prison walls. For more than 20 years it has been established in this circuit that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to visual inspections of prisoners. It is best to leave the law of the circuit alone, unless and until the Justices suggest that it needs change.

Affirmed

Full Text

[divider]

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Paramount Media Group, Inc. v. Village of Bellwood, et al.

Case No.: 17-1562

Officials: RIPPLE, SYKES, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Equal Protection Violation

In 2005 Paramount Media Group, Inc., leased a parcel of highway-adjacent property in the Village of Bellwood, Illinois, and planned to build a billboard on it. But Paramount never applied for a local permit. When the Village enacted a ban on new billboard permits in 2009, Paramount lost the opportunity to build its sign.

Paramount later sought to take advantage of an exception to the ban for village-owned property, offering to lease a different parcel of highway-adjacent property directly from the Village. But again it was foiled. The Village accepted an offer from Image Media Advertising, Inc., one of Paramount's competitors. Its goal slipping away, Paramount sued the Village and Image Media alleging First Amendment, equal-protection, due-process, Sherman Act, and state law violations. The Village and Image Media moved for summary judgment. The district court granted...