You are here

Opinions

Below is a list of opinions specially selected for public release by judges in the district.  For a detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.

Note:  This database does not contain all decisions issued by all judges and is not intended to replace PACER or other more comprehensive case law sites.  The PACER system provides a report of written opinions as defined by the Judicial Conference.  Access to both the report and the opinions is free.  In order to access court records via PACER you must have a PACER account.  For PACER access and online registration, please click here.

21-CV-969 Huber v. Beth et al

Decision and Order

The father and estate of Anthony Huber, who was killed by Kyle Rittenhouse during the protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin in August 2020, filed a tort and civil-rights action against Rittenhouse and law-enforcement agencies. All parties filed motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and Rittenhouse filed an additional motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. The court determined that the complaint stated claims against all defendants and that plaintiff had established a prima facie case of proper service on Rittenhouse. The court determined that the complaint stated due-process claims against law enforcement for creating a dangerous situation in which protestors and armed civilians were forced to confront each other in a confined area, and which led to violence that resulted in Huber’s death. The court also determined that the complaint stated civil-rights claims based on the existence of an alleged conspiracy between law enforcement and the armed civilians to use force against protestors. With respect to service on Rittenhouse, the court determined that plaintiff’s evidence established a prima facie case of proper abode service at a residence in Florida. The court also noted that, if it was later determined that this was not Rittenhouse’s abode at the time, the court would allow additional service attempts because it appeared that Rittenhouse was evading service.

File:
PDF icon 21-CV-969 Huber v. Beth et al.pdf
Judge:
Lynn Adelman
Date:
Wednesday, February 1, 2023

21-CR-174 USA v. Stokes

Statement of Reasons Memorandum

The court set forth the reasons for the sentence imposed on the defendant, convicted of two counts of possessing a firearm as a felon.  The court explained why a period of confinement was necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offenses, to protect the public, and to deter.  The court further explained why a sentence below the guideline range would suffice, given its partial disagreement with the guideline applicable to this case.  Finally, the court addressed the defendant’s other arguments for leniency.

File:
PDF icon 21-CR-174 USA v. Stokes (42).pdf
Judge:
Lynn Adelman
Date:
Tuesday, January 31, 2023

22-CV-1068 West v. DeJoy

Decision and Order

After Quincy L. West was fired from the Postal Service for a second time, he sued alleging that the Postal Service breached a grievance settlement agreement related to his first termination where it agreed to change his file to reflect that he resigned rather than was fired. The defendant argued that under § 2 of the Postal Service Reorganization Act (which is the Postal Service analogue to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act) West was required to exhaust his remedies under the collective bargaining agreement and allege that the union breached its duty of fair representation. The court denied the motion to dismiss because the pleadings did not establish that West’s claim was subject to the CBA’s dispute resolution procedures. If the claim was not subject to the CBA, a fair representation claim was unnecessary.

File:
PDF icon 22-CV-1068 West v DeJoy.pdf
Judge:
William E. Duffin
Date:
Tuesday, January 31, 2023

22-CV-990 Hunter v. AFGroup Emerging Markets

Decision and Order

Timothy Hunter, “a practicing Christian Minister with credentials from the Universal Life Church Monastery,” informed his employer, AFGroup Emerging Market, that he concluded that his religious beliefs prevented him from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. However, AFGroup had not yet implemented a vaccination policy for its employees. When it eventually did, it denied Hunter’s request for an exemption and eventually terminated his employment when he refused to be vaccinated. The court held that a request for a religious accommodation, unaccompanied by anything that could be regarded as opposition to an unlawful employment practice, is not protected activity under the Title VII. Therefore, the court granted to the defendant’s motion to dismiss Hunter’s retaliation claim. The defendant did not move to dismiss Hunter’s religious discrimination claim.

File:
PDF icon 22-CV-990 Hunter v AFGroup Emerging Markets.pdf
Judge:
William E. Duffin
Date:
Tuesday, January 24, 2023

22-CV-777 Action Rentals Holdings v. Wacker Neuson America Corporation

Order

The defendant, a construction equipment manufacturer, supplied the plaintiff with construction equipment for distribution in Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana. The plaintiff brought claims for breach of contract, equitable accounting, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, fraudulent inducement, account stated, and open account regarding certain fees and warranties it contends the defendant owed. The defendant moved to dismiss all but the breach of contract claims. The court found that Florida’s independent tort doctrine barred the plaintiff’s fraud claim, that the breach of contract claims precluded the quasi-contractual unjust enrichment/quantum meruit claims and obviated the need for the equitable accounting claim, and that the open account claim failed because it was premised on a unilateral account.

File:
PDF icon 22-CV-777 Action Rentals Holdings v Wacker Neuson America Corporation.pdf
Judge:
William E. Duffin
Date:
Wednesday, January 11, 2023

Pages