Thursday, April 14, 2016
Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides interesting Illinois case today; and Indiana prisoner appeal
In John Lewert v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc (ND Ill), a 12-page opinion, Chief Judge Wood writes:
About two months after they dined at P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, in Northbrook, Illinois, John Lewert and Lucas Kosner received the unwelcome news that the restaurant’s computer system had been hacked and debit- and credit–card data had been stolen. Lewert and Kosner brought separate suits, which were later consolidated, seeking damages resulting from the theft on behalf of themselves and a class. Concluding that they had not suffered the requisite personal injury, the district court dismissed for lack of standing. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). In light of Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Grp., LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015), we reverse and remand for further proceedings. * * *In Terrance Flynn v. Marion Thatcher (ND Ind., DeGuilio), a 4-page per curiam opinion, the court writes:
This is not our first time to examine standing in a case involving a data breach. In Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Grp., LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015), the high–end department store Neiman Marcus experienced a data breach that potentially exposed the payment–card data of all customers who paid with cards during the previous year. * * *
We conclude that the plaintiffs have alleged enough to support Article III standing. In so ruling, we express no opinion on the merits or on the suitability of this case for class certification. The district court’s judgment is REVERSED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Terrance Flynn, an Indiana prisoner, ap-peals the dismissal of his suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he claims that he is being denied equal pro-tection because he does not receive the same privileges as participants in an inmate “Honor Program.” Because we agree with the district court that Flynn’s complaint fails to state a claim, we affirm the dismissal. * * *
Even Flynn concedes in his appellate brief that the program “rewards” prisoners “for good behavior.” He argues, however, that there can be no valid reason to deny him the same privileges because he has demonstrated the same good behavior and meets all of the criteria for admission. But there are many rational reasons for requiring an application to evaluate the prisoner before awarding benefits. See McGinnis, 410 U.S. at 272–73.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 14, 2016 01:15 PM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions