Santa's Best Craft L v. St. Paul Fi, No. 11-2115 (7th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on May 23, 2012.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 June 29, 2012 Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge SANTA S BEST CRAFT, LLC, SANTA S BEST, and H. S. CRAFT MANUFACTURING CO.,     Plaintiffs Appellants, No.  11 2115 v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division No. 04 C 1342 Robert W. Gettleman, Judge. ORDER On consideration of the petition of plaintiffs appellants for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc filed June 5, 2012, in the above captioned case, all of the judges on the panel voted to deny are hearing, and no other member of the court has voted* to hear this case en banc. Therefore, the petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc is DENIED.  The dispositive order filed May 23, 2012, is amended as follows: No. 11 2115                                                                                                                                Page 2 The eleventh line of the continuing paragraph on page two, which reads:  to consider on remand if the  primary focus  should read  to consider on remand if a  primary focus .  The second line of the first full paragraph on page two, which reads:  trade dress claims was the primary focus  should read  trade dress claims was a primary focus .  The fourth line of the second full paragraph on page two, which reads:  the district court concluded that the primary focus of the JLJ settlement  should read  the district court concluded that a primary focus of the JLJ settlement . The second line of the third full paragraph on page two, which reads:  the primary focus of the JLJ settlement  should read  a primary focus of the JLJ settlement .  The eighth line of the third full paragraph on page two, which reads  was not the primary focus  should read  was not a primary focus . The fourth line of the continuing paragraph on page three, which reads  was the primary focus  should read  was a primary focus .  * Judge Rovner is recused from voting on this matter.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.