Class action — CAFA, home state controversy

Posted November 5, 2021 9:26 AM

Where home state controversy exception applied, defendant was prevented from removing class action to federal court under CAFA.The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a decision by Judge Harry D. Leinenweber, Northern District of Illinois.Ranita Railey began working at Sunset Food Mart, a small Illinois grocery chain with five stores, in January 2016. Three years later, she filed a putative class action on behalf of herself and other Sunset employees alleging that the company’s use of a biometric time clock …

To Read the Full Story

Your source for legal news and information

Print & Digital Access

Stay in the know all year long with these benefits:

Delivery to your office in downtown Chicago or mailed outside our hand-delivery zone.
Unlimited access to chicagolawbulletin.com.
Access to our e-edition and mobile site.
Breaking news alerts, Morning Lineup and Afternoon Headlines.
Exclusive access to events, discounts and more.

Order now, or call 312-644-2394 or email Subscription@LawBulletinMedia.com for details.

Be in the know. These must-read insider briefings will keep you

informed of the latest legal developments in Chicago. Sign up today!

Criminal procedure — waiver of counsel

Where defendant waives his right to counsel, the court must provide admonishments under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 401(a) at that point in time, prior admonishments do not suffice.
Jail — suicide

Where detainee told jail officers he was not considering suicide, and jail took precautions to frequently observe detainee for unusual behavior, detainee’s suicide did not render jail’s precautions constitutionally inadequate.
Civil procedure — additur

Where a court agreed to alter a jury award under additur as inconsistent with the verdict, the court must either obtain the defendant’s consent or initiate a new trial on damages.
Social Security — detail of ALJ opinion

Where social security claimant argued ALJ included insufficient amount of medical record in decision, panel rejected argument, finding that summary was enough to support ALJ’s reasoning.
Torts — proximate cause

Where plaintiff is injured when a person crashes their car into a business plaintiff is patronizing, the incident may be foreseeable and does not preclude proximate cause by the business.
Sentencing — application note

Where court declined to revisit precedent deferring to application note’s interpretation of provision of Sentencing Guidelines.
Criminal procedure — denial of sentencing credit

Where defendant petitions seeking sentencing credit and the petition is denied, the denial is not a final or appealable order and the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider it.
Family law — dissolution of marriage proceedings

Where a party in an ongoing dissolution of marriage proceedings is ordered to pay attorney fees for a related probate proceeding, that order is not final and appealable.