Weekly Case Digests February 11, 2019 February 15, 2019.

Byline: Rick Benedict

7th Circuit Digests

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Orgone Capital, III, LLC, et al. v. Keith Daubenspeck, et al.

Case No.: 18-1815

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Statutory Interpretation Securities Statute of Limitations

Hype and reality can be at odds. This contrast arises often in postmortems on once-fashionable, now-failed investment securities. Hype can raise investors' hopes and, in turn, capital contributions. But when hype accelerates an investment's market value beyond its actual worth, a financial bubble is formed.

Fisker Automotive, Inc. was such a bubble, bursting in 2013. Plaintiffs, all purchasers of Fisker securities between 2009 and 2012, assert various claims against defendants, each of whom played roles in Fisker's early-stage financing, for allegedly misleading investors regarding Fisker's intrinsic value and imminent collapse. Illinois law provides remedies when securities are sold by means of deceptive and fraudulent practices. But like any civil action, such claims must be timely filed. Our review does not explore the cause of or the defendants' alleged roles in Fisker's failure. Rather, we decide whether plaintiffs' claims fall within the Illinois securities laws, and if so whether their claims are time-barred by Illinois's three-year statute of limitations for securities-based claims.

Affirmed

Full Text

[divider]

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Johnnie Lee Savory v. William Cannon, Sr.

Case No.: 17-3543

Officials: ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges

Focus: 14th Amendment Violations

Johnnie Lee Savory spent thirty years in prison for a 1977 double murder that he insists he did not commit. Even after his release from prison, he continued to assert his innocence. Thirty-eight years after his conviction, the governor of Illinois pardoned Savory. Nearly two years after the pardon, Savory filed a civil rights suit against the City of Peoria ("City") and a number of Peoria police officers alleging that they framed him. The district court dismissed the suit as untimely. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and Remanded

Full Text

[divider]

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Marco Proano

Case No.: 17-3466

Officials: KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Sufficiency of Evidence and Jury Instructions

On-duty officer Marco Proano fired sixteen shots at a moving sedan filled with teenagers until the car idled against a light pole. He hit two passengers. The government charged Proano with two counts of willful deprivation of constitutional rights, one for each injured passenger, and a jury convicted on both counts. 18 U.S.C. 242. Proano appeals, claiming both pretrial and trial errors. We affirm.

Affirmed

Full Text

[divider]

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: David Lee, et al. v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad

Case No.: 18-1930

Officials: BAUER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Employment Discrimination

Current and former employees filed a complaint in federal court against Northeast Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation ("Metra") and several of its employees alleging various forms of discrimination. The plaintiffs eventually filed an amended complaint, which was met with a motion to dismiss, a second amended complaint, and an amended second amended complaint. The defendants responded to the amended second amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss. The motion argued, just as the motion to dismiss the amended complaint did, that the complaint had several substantive deficiencies and failed to provide defendants with sufficient notice. The district court held that the plaintiffs' repeated failure to remedy these deficiencies warranted denial of the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The district court then granted the defendants' motion to dismiss holding the plaintiffs' failure to respond to defendants' arguments, or otherwise defend its pleadings, resulted in waiver. The plaintiffs-appellants now invite this Court to reverse both holdings. For the reasons set forth herein, we decline the invitation and affirm the district court.

Affirmed

Full Text

[divider]

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: BankDirect Capital Finance, LLC, et al. v. Capital Premium Financing, Inc.

Case No.: 18-1054

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

Focus: Breach of Contract Damages

BankDirect Capital Finance and Capital Premium Financing both participate in the market for loans to finance insurance premiums. Insurers want to be paid up front for the full policy period, but many businesses prefer to pay by the month. A premium-financing loan makes both things possible. The client makes a down payment toward the annual premium and borrows the rest. It repays the loan monthly.

Our initial question is whether we have appellate jurisdiction. In addition to holding that statements in an opinion are not an injunction, Gunn concludes that the absence of an injunction satisfying Rule 65(d) prevents a direct appeal from a three-judge district court to the Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. 1253 (1970 ed.). If that's how 1253 works, maybe the same is true about 1292(a)(1), which BankDirect...