Weekly Case Digests September 21, 2020 September 25, 2020.

Byline: Rick Benedict

7th Circuit Digests

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Speech First, Inc., v. Thomas L. Killeen, et al.,

Case No.: 19-2807

Officials: BRENNAN, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Preliminary Injunction

Colleges and universities unquestionably benefit from the free flow of ideas, debate, and deliberation on campus. These institutions should strive to foster an environment where critical thought, and sometimes strong disagreement, can flourish. Indeed, "[f]reedom of expression and academic freedom are at the very core of the mission of colleges and universities, and limiting the expression of ideas would undermine the very learning environment that is central to higher education." Erwin Chemerinsky & Howard Gillman, Free Speech on Campus x (Yale Univ. Press 2017).

Speech Firsta national advocacy organization dedicated to promoting the exercise of free speech on college campusesalleges that three distinct policies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ("the University") threaten these ideals and impermissibly chill the speech of student members of its organization. It seeks a preliminary injunction to put a halt to these policies.

When a party seeks a preliminary injunction before the district court, the burden rests on that party to demonstrate that it has standing to pursue its claims. Speech First failed to meet that burden for two of the policies it challenges; namely, it failed to demonstrate that its members face a credible fear that they will face discipline on the basis of their speech as a result of those two policies. And for its challenge to the third policy, that claim is moot. The district court therefore correctly denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, and we affirm.

Affirmed

Full Text

[divider]

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Kevin Darnel Kizart

Case No.: 19-2641

Officials: BRENNAN, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Warrantless Search Motion to Suppress Denied

A police officer pulled over an individual for speeding and smelled burnt marijuana coming from the car. He proceeded to search for contraband or other evidence of illegal activity. We consider whether the scope of that search included the vehicle's trunk where the officer found illegal drugs.

Affirmed

Full Text

[divider]

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York, et al., v. FCE Benefit Administrators, Inc.,

Case No.: 19-2336

Officials: MANION, KANNE, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Insurance Claim Arbitration Clause - Damages

This case had its origins in an Administrative Services Agreement that Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York and Madison National Life Insurance Company, Inc. (collectively, the "Insurers") entered into with FCE Benefit Administrators, Inc. ("FCE"). Under that agreement, FCE administered health insurance policies underwritten by the Insurers. After a few years, however, the Insurers became dissatisfied with FCE's performance, and so they invoked the Agreement's arbitration clause.

The arbitration proceeded in two phases. In Phase I, the arbitrators awarded the Insurers damages of more than five million dollars. The Insurers attempted to confirm this award in the Northern District of Illinois, but the district court concluded that this effort was premature because the case was not yet ripe for adjudication. This was so because the arbitrators had not yet resolved all matters that had been submitted to them. In Phase II, the arbitrators denied the Insurers' remaining claim and FCE's counterclaim. After the conclusion of Phase II, the Insurers once again sought confirmation. This time, the district court confirmed the arbitration results in their entirety, meaning both the Phase I and Phase II awards. FCE now appeals from the confirmation of the Phase I award. Finding no reason to set aside the district court's conclusion, we affirm its judgment.

Affirmed

Full Text

[divider]

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Casimer Zablocki, et al., v. Merchants Credit Guide Co.,

Case No.: 19-2045

Officials: FLAUM, KANNE, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.

Focus: FDCPA Violation

As its name suggests, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") prohibits debt collection practices that are "unfair." 15 U.S.C. 1692f. This case tests the bounds of that term. Casimer Zablocki and Regina Johnson received medical services and did not remit their parts of the bills. The medical- service providers turned to Merchants Credit Guide for debt collection, and Merchants eventually reported the unpaid debts to a consumer reporting agency. When Merchants reported the debts, it listed separately the debt for each medical-service charge. Zablocki and Johnson sued Merchants on the theory that reporting the obligations separately, rather than aggregating them together, was an "unfair" way to collect the debts under 1692f of the FDCPA.

The district court dismissed this theory as unsupported by the FDCPA's prohibition of "unfair or unconscionable" means to collect a debt. 15 U.S.C. 1692f. We affirm.

Affirmed

Full Text

[divider]

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Christy Lentz v. Teri Kennedy

Case No.: 18-2659

Officials: FLAUM, BARRETT, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Habeas Relief Denied

For nearly a week Christy Lentz feigned ignorance as she pretended to help investigators locate her missing father. Officers soon discovered the father's decaying body hidden at the office building the two shared, and all signs pointed to Lentz as the murderer. Lentz, with her young daughter in tow, voluntarily accompanied officers to the police station under the pretense of follow-up questioning for the missing persons investigation. For the first hour and a half, officers asked general questions, like when and where she last saw her father, to commit Lentz to her story. They then took a cigarette break. When the interview resumed, the tone changed. The officers read Lentz her Miranda rights and confronted her with the mounting evidence against her. Over the next four hours, Lentz slowly confessed to shooting her father.

In the state trial court, Lentz moved to suppress her videotaped confession but the court denied her motion. She proceeded to trial, where the confession was admitted into evidence, and a jury found her guilty of first-degree murder. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the conviction on direct review. Lentz then tried her hand at state postconviction proceedings but was unsuccessful.

Now on federal habeas review, Lentz claims the interrogation violated her constitutional rights in two ways: that she was "in custody" during the pre-Miranda portion of the interview, and that her confession was involuntary. Because our review is deferential and the state court's decision with respect to both issues was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, we affirm the district court's denial of habeas relief.

Affirmed

Full Text

[divider]

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Allen L. Surprise v. Andrew M. Saul

Case No.: 19-3233

Officials: SYKES, Chief Judge, and BAUER and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: ALJ Error Expert Testimony

Allen Surprise appeals the denial of his claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security income. The initial ALJ assigned to his case determined that Surprise's residual functional capacity ("RFC") included a limitation regarding fine manipulation, but nevertheless concluded that Surprise was not entitled to benefits. Surprise challenged this decision in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which twice remanded the matter: once because the transcript of the vocational expert's testimony was incomplete and once in response to a stipulation from the parties. Surprise contests two aspects of the decision the second ALJ made upon remand: (1) that she failed to adequately...