Case law

Monroe v. Rauner

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 4, 2020

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have established typicality. D. … Defendants do not challenge the adequacy of class counsel (see Doc. 145, p. 10), and the Court has no reason to believe they are not qualified.

Green v. Humana At Home, Inc.

380 F. Supp. 3d 400 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2019

Court also held that Humana had not demonstrated it was entitled to the Portal-to-Portal Act's good-faith defense because Humana had not demonstrated as a matter of law that it had a subjective good-faith belief that it was immunized … If Congress had intended for reliance on judicial actions or inferences therefrom to qualify for protection under the statute, it could have written the Portal-to-Portal Act to cover such circumstances. *414 d.

Englage

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 30, 2025

As this Court has observed, Plaintiff has some high school education and has demonstrated an ability to clearly communicate with the Court and follow directions. … The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Hazlitt v. Apple Inc.

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 12, 2020

Moreover, by its plain language, section 15(c) clearly prohibits profiting from “a person’s or a customer’s” biometric identifier or biometric information, not the general sales of devices equipped with facial recognition … As other courts have established, the states of mind with regard to BIPA only relate to possible recovery for each violation, which is not yet before the Court.

Nautilus Insurance Company v. CSN Entertainment, LLC

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 8, 2025

McDowell alleges that CSN was negligent because it failed to hire and select an experienced, qualified and/or competent security service. (Doc. 1-1). Ms. … Accepting these facts as true, as the Court must here, they clearly fall within the exclusions of the Policy.

Dunkley v. AFSCME

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 6, 2020

To survive a motion seeking dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a plaintiff must “clearly allege facts demonstrating each element” required to establish he has standing. See Spokeo, Inc. v. … By virtue of the Eleventh Amendment, suits against states in federal courts are barred and state governmental agencies are immune. Id.

Midwest Railcar Corporation, et. al. v. Steel on Steel Railways, LLC, et. al.

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 2, 2026

This Court is therefore satisfied that Lewis Salvage qualifies as a good-faith purchaser under Article 9. … Accordingly, Lewis Salvage’s purchase of assets from Lake City Bank, an Indiana Bank, does not qualify as activity purposefully directed at Illinois, particularly given that Lewis Salvage specifically disclaimed

Barnett v. Raoul

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Feb 23, 2024

Once dual use is established, the scale tips toward Second Amendment protection. A. … Does the item meet all of the specifications required by the United States military to qualify for issue as a rifle or pistol to be deployed with United States troops?

Lifeguard Licensing Corp. v. Kozak

371 F. Supp. 3d 114 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2019

Nike, Inc. , 663 F.3d at 96 (footnotes omitted). 10 The burden of establishing that a covenant not to sue extinguishes a controversy lies with the party providing the covenant. … Contrary to Defendants' arguments, however, this case does not qualify as exceptional.

Sanchez v. United States

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Dec 22, 2022

Because his prior conviction no longer qualifies as a valid predicate offense to a § 851 enhancement, he argues, his sentence is unconstitutional and he should be resentenced. … Co., 698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir. 2012) (“To prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion to amend judgment, a party must clearly establish (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence

Akers v. Simpkins

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 14, 2023

On April 6, 2023, Petitioner filed the Motion, arguing “[t]he court has respectfully misapprehended certain facts in finding…the Petitioner does not qualify for the ‘savings clause contained in § 2255(e).’ ” (Doc. 9, pg … Now, the Court may alter or amend its judgment if Petitioner has clearly established either a manifest error of law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Beyah v.

L.M. v. Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 6, 2019

As explained above, the Complaint fails to clearly define the specific liberty or property interest that was violated here. … The Complaint also does not clearly delineate what allegations relate to a substantive due process claim.

Hernandez v. The Illinois Department of Corrections

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 2, 2021

on Hernandez’s claim of deliberate indifference regarding his need for a functioning air 5 Hernandez also moved for summary judgment on the Wexford Defendants’ affirmative defenses of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity … Here, it is undisputed that Hernandez is a qualified individual with a disability and that IDOC is a public entity.

Wallace v. Continental Tire the Americas, LLC

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 7, 2022

If a single event as repulsive as this does not rise to the level of outrageousness required to establish IIED, then, clearly, a Teams message also fails muster here, even in the circumstances Wallace alleges. … Even when taking all inferences in Wallace’s favor, his pleadings do not establish a plausible argument that Chobanian’s Teams message rose to the level of extreme or outrageous conduct in accordance required to establish

Gaines, Jr. v. Jackson County Sheriff's Office

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Dec 19, 2022

Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from an immune defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). … The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Defendants LARANA HILL and JACKSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE as parties in CM/ECF and ENTER this Court’s standard HIPAA Qualified Protective Order.

Webb

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Dec 19, 2025

Nevertheless, a court can deny a qualified plaintiff leave to file in forma pauperis or can dismiss a case if the action is clearly frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). … Plaintiff’s renewed IFP Motion must clearly establish his indigency.

Morris v. Williams

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 23, 2022

Id. at small amount of time between crimes may be enough to separate them for purposes of the ACCA,” and Morris clearly committed two separate crimes when the conduct underlying his two serious drug offenses … In In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998), the Seventh Circuit construed the saving clause to allow for habeas relief under § 2241 if a petitioner establishes: (1) the claim relies on a statutory interpretation

Brown v. Rayford

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 1, 2024

Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed … To establish a failure to protect claim under the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege “(1) that he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm and (2) that the defendants acted with

Smith v. Dodd

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 11, 2022

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996), there is no “abstract freestanding right to a law library…[and] an inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison’s law library…is subpar in some … Here, Plaintiff has not clearly suggested prejudice.

Cripps v. Schutt

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 20, 2025

Nevertheless, a court can deny a qualified plaintiff leave to file in forma pauperis or can dismiss a case if the action is clearly frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). … In other words, this court cannot hear this action if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, established through diversity citizenship of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 or pursuant to a federal question under 28 U.S.C