Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Illinois Appellate Courts

Newspaper Not Liable for Police Report Mistake Under Fair Report Privilege

August 31, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Our Illinois defamation attorneys and Chicago business law lawyers were interested to see a recent Second District Court of Appeal case affirming the fair-report privilege for newspapers accused of defamation. That was one cause of action in Eubanks v. Northwest Herald Newspapers, No. 2-08-0812 (Ill. 2nd 2010), in which plaintiff Carolene Eubanks also alleged false light invasion of privacy. Eubanks was upset at the Northwest Herald for printing a police notice that she had been arrested for retail theft and attempted obstruction of justice. In fact, another woman was arrested; the police had made a mistake in their original report. Unfortunately, the mistake was caught too late and the report went to print. The newspaper printed a retraction the next day explaining that Eubanks was not the person arrested.

Nonetheless, Eubanks filed a lawsuit against Northwest Herald Newspapers about five months later, alleging defamation and false light invasion of privacy. The newspaper moved for summary judgment, asserting that it was immune from defamation lawsuits under the fair report privilege. That privilege shields the media from lawsuits as long as they use official records or reports — including police reports — and fairly and accurately report that official information. The motion included an affidavit from the newspaper employee who received the original, incorrect police report via email, Brenda Schory, as well as the follow-up report correcting it. Because the matter took place on a New Year’s holiday weekend, Schory said, she didn’t open the second email until the incorrect report had already been published.

The trial court denied this motion for summary judgment, saying it provided no evidence of whether another employee might have opened the email before Schory could. In response, the newspaper made another motion for summary judgment, this time including an affidavit from the employee that maintains its computer system, Ben Shaw. Shaw said he had looked through computer records and was able to prove that no employee opened the second email until late in the morning the incorrect story had been published. The trial court granted summary judgment this time. Eubanks appealed, arguing that the fair report privilege does not apply to the article at issue, and that a jury should decide whether it recklessly abused the privilege.

The Second District first addressed the issue of whether the fair-report privilege applied at all. Illinois law says the privilege applies if the report is “accurate and complete or a fair abridgement” of the official information. Eubanks argued that the Northwest Herald article was not fair and complete because it did not contain the information from the second email. The Second disagreed. Relying on caselaw including Gist v. Macon County Sheriff’s Department, 284 Ill. App. 3d 367, 376 (1996), the court noted that the law asks only whether the publication was accurate, not whether the information contained in it is actually true. The newspaper had no obligation to report the contents of the second email until it opened that email, the court said. Thus, the privilege still applies.

Next, the court tackled the argument from Eubanks that summary judgment was inappropriate because a reasonable juror could find that the newspaper abused its privilege by acting recklessly. To support this, Eubanks argued that the newspaper could have covered police reports or checked email over the holiday weekend. In any case, she argued that this is inappropriate for summary judgment and a jury should decide. The Second dismissed this argument as well. Most qualified privileges in Illinois can be overcome if the plaintiff can show malice, the court said. But under Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill. 2d 558, 588 (2006), not even malice overcomes the fair-report privilege. That decision said the privilege can be abused only if the defendant’s report was inaccurate, for example, by omitting information or adding incorrect information. For that reason, there was no abuse of the privilege in this case, and summary judgment was appropriate.

Arbitration Clause in Written Contract Cannot Compel Arbitration in Oral Agreement, First District Finds

August 17, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

As Chicago alternative dispute resolution attorneys, we were pleased to read a decision from the First District Court of Appeal on compelling arbitration in an oral contract related to a written contract. In Marks v. RSM et al, No. 1-09-1988 (Ill. 1st. March 12, 2010), Carol Marks allegedly contracted with RSM McGladrey Inc. to do accounting for investments she held. That was a written contract including an arbitration clause. Marks alleges that she later entered a separate oral contract with the managing director of RSM and RSM for investment advice. However, she was unhappy with the advice she received and later sued the defendants. The defendants sought to compel arbitration under the written contract, and the trial court denied this, saying there was no arbitration agreement for the oral contract. The First upheld that decision.

Marks allegedly originally retained RSM to monitor her investment accounts. For that work, she signed an “engagement letter” as a contract, which included two clauses of interest. One specifies that RSM will use its professional judgment in applying “rule applicable to this engagement.” The other is a binding arbitration clause requiring dispute resolution to go through the American Arbitration Association. Marks signed, but during the remainder of her first year with RSM, she alleges that RSM failed to provide the portfolio reporting services she expected and instead allegdly began to promote various investments to her. She further alleged that RSM charged her separately for those services and emphasized that they were separate, but no written contract was signed. The court also notes that Bober and RSM allegedly were not registered with the state of Illinois or with the SEC as providers of investment services.

As a result of the alleged solicitations, Marks allegedly put $500,000 into Lancelot Investors Fund II, which put the money into a hedge fund called Thousand Lakes. Marks alleged this conduct damaged her economically. She sued RSM and its managing director, alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties and oral contract with her by allegedly failing to investigate Lancelot and that they allegedly negligently held themselves out as investment experts. She sought to void the oral contract and the Lancelot investment.

In trial court, the defendants denied all of her allegations and also moved to compel arbitration under the engagement letter. This motion was denied without any decision rendered on the merits of the underlying breach of fiduciary duty claim. On their motion for consideration, the defendants alleged that they provided no investment advice and did not recommend Lancelot; rather, the RSM managing director saw from the accounting work that Marks could use such advice, so he introduced her to advisors who did recommend Lancelot. This motion too was denied, and defendants appealed, saying the dispute is covered by the arbitration agreement. They also argued that the Federal Arbitration Act supports this because it has a presumption of arbitrability.

The First rejected this position. Under the FAA, which it said was the governing law in this case, it was proper for the trial court rather than an arbitrator to decide arbitrability. Under that law and the Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 649, 89 L. Ed. 2d 648, 656, 106 S. Ct. 1415, 1418 (1986), parties cannot be compelled to arbitration unless they have agreed to do so in their contract.

Illinois case law seems to confirm this. The court cited Johnson v. Noble, 240 Ill. App. 3d 731, 732-33 (1992), which also concerned a case with one written contract and one oral contract. In that case, as in this one, the defendant sought to compel arbitration based on the written contract, but the plaintiff argued that the claims arose from the oral contract. The trial and appeals courts agreed, saying the dispute was not arbitrable because it arose from a separate oral contract. Similarly, in Board of Managers of Chestnut Hills Condominium Ass’n. v. Pasquinelli, Inc., 354 Ill. App. 3d 749 (2004), an appeals court upheld the plaintiff’s right to sue because the claims at issue were outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.

In this case, the First wrote, defendants had two separate agreements, one oral and one written. The dispute arose out of the oral contract, it said, so Marks was not required to conform to the terms of the written contract. In fact, the court said the language of the written contract indicates that the parties did not intend to extend the contract past “this engagement.” For those reasons, it upheld the trial court’s decision and remanded it to the trial court for further proceedings.

When the case returned to the trial court, the parties ultimately agreed to it being dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a stipulation to dismiss. The defendants denied all of the allegations and the case did not proceed to trial so plaintiff’s claims remained allegations that were not proven at a trial. Defendants maintain that the allegations that they did anything wrong were baseless and lacked any merit.

Covenant Not to Compete Unenforceable Because Contract Violated Illinois Law — Our Chicago Business Law Attorneys Defend and Prosecute Trade Secret Theft and Covenant Not Compete Lawsuits

May 27, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

As Chicago business law attorneys, we were interested to see a recent appellate opinion reminding Illinois businesses that severability clauses won’t necessarily protect contract provisions from other clauses that have been voided. That was what happened in Kepple and Company, Inc. v. Cardiac, Thoracic and Endovasclar Therapies, S.C., No. 3-09-0033, Ill. 3rd. Dec. 16, 2009. In that case, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld a Peoria trial court’s ruling that an entire services contract between a medical biller and a medical corporation was void, because a fee-sharing provision violated the Medical Practice Act of 1987.

Kepple is a medical billing and collection services company. Cardiac, a medical corporation run by a single doctor, hired Kepple in 2003. Their services contract contained a fee-sharing clause allowing Kepple to retain 5% of all the money it collects for Cardiac. It also had non-compete, non-solicitation and no-hire clauses forbidding either company to solicit or hire away the other company’s employees without a release. And it had a severability clause specifying that if one part of the contract was found void, other parts should still be enforceable.

Cardiac became unhappy with Kepple’s services in mid-2006 and called a meeting on Aug. 3, 2006. Two days later, Kepple’s vice president, Debra Hawley, gave notice that she would leave on Nov. 3. Hawley was the sole person handling Cardiac’s work. Her employment contract had a non-compete clause preventing her from joining a company with 50% or more of its business from medical billing within one year of leaving Kepple. On Sept. 13, Cardiac gave notice that it was terminating its contract with Kepple as of Nov. 10. On Nov. 13, Hawley started working for Cardiac.

Kepple sued both of them when it found out and requested a preliminary injunction keeping Hawley from working at Cardiac. The trial court turned this down, finding that Hawley’s employment contract didn’t apply, since Cardiac is not a competitor to Kepple, and that the non-compete clause of the services contract was unenforceable because it had no time limit. It also found that Hawley was solicited, but not hired, while she was at Kepple, but that suing was an adequate remedy for this. An interlocutory appeal to the Third District upheld these findings.

On remand, the defendants promptly filed for summary judgment based on both courts’ findings. The trial court granted it, saying that the service contract’s fee-sharing clause violated the Act, which prohibits physicians from sharing fees with anyone other than physicians practicing in the same business. Thus, the court said, the contract was void in its entirety. And even if the contract was severable, the trial court had already found that Cardiac did not induce Hawley to leave her job at Kepple. Thus, there was no violation of the non-solicitation clause, the trial court found. Kepple appealed, arguing only the severability issue. It agreed that the Medical Practice Act banned the fee-sharing agreement, but said other provisions are severable and enforceable.

In its opinion, the Third District said that under the Second Restatement of Contracts, the essential issue was whether the voided part of the contract was an essential part of the contract. In this case, the court said “there can be no dispute” that it was. The fee-sharing clause is “the very essence” of the agreement, the court said, and thus the entire contract is void and unenforceable. That means the trial court was correct to grant summary judgment in Cardiac’s favor. With that settled, the appeals court noted that it did not have to consider the remainder of either side’s arguments. It also dismissed an argument by Kepple as waived on appeal because it was not raised in trial court.

First District Upholds Punitive Damages Award in Defective Townhouse Case

May 19, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Our Chicago consumer fraud attorneys were pleased to see a recent ruling affirming real estate buyers’ right to relief, and punitive damages, after fraud by the builder. Linhart v. Bridgeview Creek Development Inc., No. 1-07-2712, (Ill. 1st May 20, 2009). Plaintiffs Ken Linhart, Beverly Linhart, Amy Gable, Jane Longo, Lloyd Clark and Diane Latta bought four townhomes in the Bridgeview subdivision in Palatine, Ill. in 1997 and 1998. All four units were part of the same building. During construction of that building, a town inspector noted that the foundation was sinking. This problem was not obvious during the pre-purchase walk-throughs, but later allegedly caused the building to sink seven to ten inches, causing cracks in the walls, slanted floors, floors and ceilings pulling apart, sticking doors and windows and flooding.

In 2001, the plaintiffs sued the developer, builder and its owner over these defects, claiming breach of implied warrant of habitability; fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment; and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. A jury trial returned a verdict of $1.38 million in compensatory damages for all plaintiffs, plus punitive damages of $5,000 plus attorney fees for each plaintiff. Defendants appealed, saying the jury’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence; the jury was improperly instructed; the six plaintiffs should have had six separate verdicts rather than one; and punitive damages were improper.

The First District started with the meatiest issue: whether the verdict itself was not supported by the evidence. On the fraud and Consumer Fraud Act claims, the defendants argued that plaintiffs should have shown that they relied on defendants’ misrepresentations when they purchased the townhouses. As to the four plaintiffs claiming common-law fraud, the court wrote, there was in fact ample evidence that they did so. The evidence in the record shows that defendants lied about the cause of cracks in the walls and the foundation, including the statement that “it’s not like the house is going to sink or anything.” Thanks to the village inspector’s report, defendants knew this was not true. Thus, the common-law fraud verdict was valid, and because common-law fraud is enough to support a Consumer Fraud Act claim, both verdicts were affirmed. The court also upheld the amount of the damages, saying qualified expert testimony supported it.

The court next examined the defendants’ argument that plaintiffs should have presented evidence for their own claims separately and received separate verdicts. It’s true that Illinois law requires separate verdicts when separate recoveries are sought, the First District wrote, but on the relevant count — breach of implied warranty of habitability — all of the plaintiffs presented their case as a single plaintiff, asking for repairs to the building as a whole. Thus, the ruling was affirmed. The First also rejected defendants’ arguments that the jury instructions were deficient in several ways. It did find an error in the jury instructions for breach of implied warranty of habitability, but said this error was harmless.

Last, the First District considered the issue of whether punitive damages were proper even though the plaintiffs never explicitly requested them. Punitive damages are available under the Consumer Fraud Act, the court noted, and plaintiffs asked for any relief provided by that law. Furthermore, evidence at trial showed that the defendants acted fraudulently or maliciously, as required for punitive damages, because they failed to correct a defect they knew about and intentionally misrepresented that defect to the buyers. And the trial court did not abuse its discretion, the appeals court said, because it considered both sides’ arguments and the defendants’ financial position. Thus, it upheld the punitive damages award and affirmed all of the trial court’s rulings.

Fifth District Allows New Trial for Insurance Customer Unhappy With Arbitration Award

April 21, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Our Illinois insurance bad faith attorneys were pleased to see a recent decision from the Fifth District Court of Appeals that upheld a driver’s right to fair treatment from her auto insurance company. American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. Stagg, Ill. 5th No. 5-08-0088 (Aug. 10, 2009) Diane Stagg had an insurance policy with American Family that included uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. That part of the policy had a provision stating that the parties could demand arbitration if they couldn’t agree on the existence or amount of coverage. It also said that arbitration awards would be binding and could be entered as judgments in court if they did not exceed the minimum limits set by the Illinois Safety Responsibility Law. If they did exceed that limit, either party has the right to a trial. The limit for bodily injury at the time was $20,000.

Stagg was later hit by an at-fault driver with a very small amount of insurance. She collected the $25,000 available in liability insurance from the at-fault driver, but requested more under her uninsured motorist coverage. She and American Family went to arbitration and she was awarded $36,340.75. However, the arbitrators set off $25,000 for the at-fault driver’s payment and $5,000 in expenses American Family had paid, leaving her with an award of just $6,340.75. Four months later, American Family filed a complaint to enforce that judgment, saying Stagg hadn’t objected to the award within time limits set by the Illinois Uniform Arbitration Act. The next month, Stagg filed a separate action against American Family, seeking a new trial.

The parallel claims may have caused some conflicting decisions by the court, but it eventually clarified that it intended to grant Stagg’s motion to dismiss American Family’s complaint. American Family appealed, arguing that the arbitration award was $6,340.75, too low to meet the contract’s threshold for going to court. Stagg argued that the arbitration award was actually 36,340.75, making it larger than the minimum limit cited in the contract. In its analysis, the court found that the term “arbitration award” as used in the contract was subject to more than one interpretation. Under American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473, 479 (1997), the court said, ambiguous language in an insurance policy should be construed against the drafter. Thus, Stagg is entitled to a new trial under the contract.

The court then addressed American Family’s contention that Stagg missed the deadline to appeal the arbitration award under the Uniform Arbitration Act. The Fifth agreed with Stagg, who argued that the limitation didn’t apply because she isn’t challenging the award through the Act, but instead requesting a new trial. The arbitration award was never binding under the contract’s language, the court said, meaning that Stagg had no obligation to state any grounds for overturning it. Thus, the court’s decision to dismiss American Family’s complaint was upheld.

Appeals Court Reverses Denial of Class Certification in Unpaid Wages Claim

April 6, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

In a wage-and-hour class action, the Illinois Second District Court of Appeal reversed all parts of a Kane County trial court’s ruling denying class certification. Our Chicago unpaid overtime lawyers were interested to read the ruling in Cruz et al v. Unilock Chicago, Inc., 383 Ill.App.3d 752, 892 N.E.2d 78, 322 Ill.Dec. 831 (2008), because it helped establish that trial courts may go beyond the complaint to determine class certification — but reminded them that they should not determine class certification on the merits of the case.

Wilfredo Cruz and the four other lead plaintiffs worked at Unilock Chicago’s Aurora manufacturing plant, which makes cement paving “stones.” They were hourly employees with a half-hour lunch break. In their complaint, the plaintiffs said they were required to be at their stations 10-15 minutes before work started, in uniform, to discuss anything the previous shift needed them to know. This required employees to show up 15-30 minutes early to change and get to their stations. Similarly, they say they were required to wait for the next shift to arrive before leaving, brief that shift, clean up and change. They say they punched in for these times, but Unilock had an automatic system that deducted up to 30 minutes before a shift and 15 minutes afterward, in order to meet the company’s labor budget. Furthermore, they claim that Unilock automatically deducted the 30-minute lunch break from their time records, then regularly required them to cut short or work through lunch. If necessary, these deletions would be backed up by a manual edit by the plant’s manager, who removed time before or shifts that went past the 30- or 15-minute defaults.

Unilock disputes much of this. It concedes that time records were manually edited, but said this was necessary because workers forgot to punch in or out, and that edits were confirmed with shift supervisors. This actually added time, it argued. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs sued, claiming that all of these practices resulted in underpayment of both regular time and overtime. Citing violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Minimum Wage Law, they moved to certify a class of more than 300 current and former hourly employees who had worked at Unilock’s Aurora plant since June of 1999. The trial court denied this motion for class certification, saying that plaintiffs had failed to meet any of the four standards for class certification. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly made findings of fact and rulings that assessed the merit of the claims themselves, rather than of the class certification request.

The Second District agreed. It started its analysis by refereeing the parties’ disagreement about whether courts may consider facts and allegations beyond the complaint in order to determine class certification. After a review of caselaw, the court decided that they can, relying in part on Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc., 249 F.3d 672 (7th Cir.2001). However, it was careful to say that courts should look into whether the plaintiff’s claim would satisfy the requirements for class certification, not the merits of the claim itself.

The Third next agreed with plaintiffs that the trial court had impermissibly decided several class certification issues on the merits of the case. For example, the trial court relied on depositions and pleadings when it determined that nobody had lost pay because employees who arrived early were permitted to leave early, “accept[ing] as conclusive the defendant’s evidence.” This and other examples are factual determinations that should not be determined at the class certification stage, the appeals court said. Many applied to the numerosity requirement of class certification. Not only were the trial court’s reasons for ruling on numerosity improper, the appeals court said, but evidence submitted by plaintiffs shows that 80 to 90 employees did not receive overtime, and defendants offered nothing in support of their assertion that this evidence was manipulated. For that and other reasons, the appeals court found sufficient evidence that the proposed class met the numerosity requirement.

It then addressed the requirement that class members have common questions to decide, which predominate over other issues in their cases. Again, it found that the trial court was incorrect in determining that these issues didn’t exist. The trial court wrote that there was no commonality or predominance because there was no evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ contentions about widespread unfair policies or time record manipulation. The plaintiffs argued that these conclusions ignored evidence or improperly reached the merits of the claim, and the appeals court agreed. The existence of disputed policies like requirements to work through lunch or editing time records is a common question, the appeals court said, regardless of how strong the evidence for it is at the pretrial stage. It would also be a predominant issue if the trial court determines that there was such a policy — which is a question for the merits of the claim, the court noted.

Finally, the appeals court rejected the trial court’s determination that the class representatives are inadequate because plaintiff Cruz had been a low-level supervisor. The trial court incorrectly relied on caselaw that isn’t sufficiently similar, the appeals court wrote, to determine that a supervisor cannot represent a class including the supervised. When the supervisor’s interests are the same as those of the supervisees and he or she did not participate in the alleged wrongdoing, it is inappropriate to deny his or her adequacy. Jefferson v. Windy City Maintenance, Inc., No. 96-C-7686, 1998 WL 474115 (N.D.Ill. August 4, 1998). Furthermore, if evidence implicating Cruz arises in discovery, the appeals court said, he can be discharged without discharging all the representatives. Thus, it reversed the trial court on all counts and remanded the case to Kane County circuit court with instructions to certify the class.

Business Not Entitled to Injunctions for Alleged Trade Secrets Act and Fiduciary Duty Violations — Our Chicago Business Law Attorneys Have Substantial Experience in Emergency Business Litigation Involving TROs and Injunctions

March 24, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Our Illinois trade secrets attorneys were pleased to see an evenhanded ruling handed down by the Second District Court of Appeal. In Stenstrom Petroleum Services Group, Inc. v. Mesch, No. 2-07-0504 (Ill. 2nd Sept.7, 2007), Stenstrom sued former employee Robert Mesch for breach of a noncompete clause, breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act. The case arises out of Mesch’s decision to leave Stenstrom and join Precision Petroleum Installation Inc., a competitor with nearly the same name as a company that Stenstrom bought. The trial court granted Stenstrom a preliminary injunction on its breach of contract claim, but denied injunctions on the other claims.

Mesch had worked in the petroleum industry since 1974, eventually becoming a project manager and salesman. Stenstrom installs, maintains and repairs petroleum equipment, such as tanks, pumps and electronics. Mesch had been working for Precision Petroleum Inc. when Stenstrom bought it in 2003. Mesch was hired during the acquisition to do the same work, and signed noncompete and confidentiality agreements. The noncompete agreement restricted Mesch from working in excavation or equipment repair in Winnebago and Boone counties for six months after his employment ended. When estimating and making bids for Stenstrom, Mesch testified that he used a crude spreadsheet inherited from his old company, rather than the estimating software other project managers at Stenstrom used.

In December of 2006, Mesch left Stenstrom and joined Precision Petroleum Installation Inc., a new company at which he had the opportunity to earn a share of profits as well as a salary. He acknowledged that PPI has bid on and discussed jobs only for Stenstrom customers, and its one client as of the hearing was a Stenstrom customer. He testified that he uses the same Excel spreadsheet and other Stenstrom data to estimate bids for PPI, but said purchasing differences between the companies mean he uses different information to calculate the bids. He also said PPI does not do excavation or repair work, relying on subcontractors. He acknowledged copying Stenstrom’s files for PPI’s use while he was at Stenstrom, but destroyed some data and handed over other data as part of the case. It would not be difficult to recreate the spreadsheet from memory, he said, because he created it, had Stenstrom discounts committed to memory and could get manufacturer prices from public knowledge.

Stenstrom president David Sockness testified at trial that the Excel spreadsheet was acquired in the 2003 purchase, is full of valuable Stenstrom information and is being used by other project managers. He said PPI had bidded on work for some of its best clients, but acknowledged that there was no exclusive agreement with several of these clients and that some take competitive bids. Stenstrom IT manager Brian Cotti testified that records show Mesch tried unsuccessfully to print a bidding report to which he did not have access. Two clients testified that their lengthy relationships with Mesch influenced their bidding decisions. At the conclusion of all of this, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction to enforce the noncompete covenant Mesch had signed until the end of the six-month period, saying it was reasonable. However, it found on the other counts that Stenstrom had failed to show it was likely to win at trial or that there was no other legal remedy available. Stenstrom and Mesch both appealed.

The Second District started by rejecting Stenstrom’s argument that the six-month restrictive covenant should have been calculated from the date Mesch ceased breaching it. The court flatly rejected this, saying the contract’s language clearly pegged the period from the day Mesch left his job at Stenstrom. It also rejected Stenstrom’s claim that it should have received a preliminary injunction based on Trade Secrets Act violations. This is based on the Excel spreadsheet Mesch used to create bids at Stenstrom and later at PPI, which Stenstrom said were full of protectable information and the result of significant investment. However, the appeals court said, Stenstrom failed to rebut Mesch’s testimony that the spreadsheet was based on publicly available information and memory, so it failed to raise a fair question about whether the information was secret enough to qualify as a trade secret.

Next, Stenstrom argued that the trial court should have granted an injunction against Mesch based on his alleged breach of fiduciary duty, a claim it said it made to avoid Stenstrom’s solicitation of its customers. Mesch was working for PPI when he copied Stenstrom’s files, the company said, and used it for PPI’s benefit. However, the Second District wrote, much of Stenstrom’s argument on breach of fiduciary duty rests on its Trade Secrets Act claim. That issue was settled above, the court said. Furthermore, Stenstrom waived its breach of fiduciary duty claim by failing to argue it clearly, the court said.

Finally, the court rejected Mesch’s argument that the trial court should have entered no preliminary injunction at all on the breach of restrictive covenant claim. Mesch is wrong to argue that the enforcement of the restrictive covenant will affect the independent Trade Secrets Act and breach of fiduciary duty claims, the court wrote. But in any case, it said, the issue is moot because the preliminary injunction period ended before the case came to the Second District. And thanks to the court’s decision on Stenstrom’s argument to change the period when the restrictive covenant applies, there’s no need to consider it. Thus, all of the trial court’s decisions were affirmed.

To Preserve Your Class Numbers, File Those Class-Certification Motions ASAP!

March 23, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Lubin Austermuehle is a litigation firm with many local clients in the Chicago-land area. Our Oak Park wage and hour attorneys recently came across an interesting case about a class-action filed in the circuit court of Cook County. Lewis v. Giordano’s Enterprises Inc. pits Plaintiff Mina Lewis, an hourly employee, against her former employer, Giordano’s, who owns and operates multiple restaurants in the Chicago metro area. The lawsuit alleged violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA) for Defendants’ automatic deduction of $0.25 per hour in exchange for making food and drink available to working employees.

This particular opinion was rendered by the Appellate Court of Illinois First District, Third Division in response to an interlocutory appeal filed by the Plaintiff. For those readers unfamiliar with legal jargon, an interlocutory appeal is a way for a party to appeal a specific issue in an ongoing case. Normally, a party must wait for a decision by the trial court before bringing an appeal to an appellate court.

In Lewis v. Giordano, the Plaintiff moved for class certification in early 2007 and the hearing on the matter was scheduled for November 14th of that year. Defendants then filed for and received several extensions of time to delay the trial court from ruling on the class certification question. Defendant obtained leave of the court initially because they had retained additional counsel shortly before the hearing date, and won a second motion to delay the ruling because of ongoing settlement discussions.

Plaintiff discovered later that during the time period after moving for class certification, Defendants obtained signed releases from employees that absolved Giordano’s of all liability arising out of the wage violations alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants incentivized the employees to sign the release by offering them a one-time payment of ten dollars. Upon discovery of this information, Plaintiff filed a motion to prevent Defendants from obtaining any more releases and informed the trial court that there had been no good faith settlement negotiations during the time period that Defendants’ filed their motions to delay the class certification hearing. Plaintiffs also requested that the court declare all of the releases void as a matter of law. The trial court partially granted Plaintiff’s motion by enjoining Defendants from obtaining any more releases and declaring the releases obtained after the November 14th hearing date to be void. Plaintiff then filed the interlocutory appeal to the Appellate Court to have the releases signed prior to November 14th voided as well.

The Court reviewed the issue de novo to determine whether releases of claims from putative class-members obtained by an employer while a motion for class certification has been filed but not yet ruled upon are void as a matter of Illinois law. Upon review, the releases signed by employees whose wages dropped below the minimum wage rate because of the $0.25 deduction were expressly void under section two of the IMWL. The remaining releases obtained after Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification were declared void as well. The Court reasoned that public policy dictated that once a motion for class certification is filed, a defendant employer may not solicit or accept releases from putative class-members.

Lewis is a boon for potential wage and hour litigants, and serves as an inducement to Plaintiffs and their attorneys to get on the ball after filing a class action wage and hour lawsuit. The lesson here is straightforward; an experienced and prudent Aurora wage and hour attorney can prevent a Defendant from obtaining releases that will erode the number of potential class members by promptly filing a motion to certify the class after filing suit.

Attorney Fees Not Available When Failure to Provide Home Repair Pamphlet Was Unintentional

January 27, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Our Chicago consumer fraud attorneys were interested to see a split decision from earlier this year in a case involving a dispute over faulty home repairs. In Kunkel v. P.K. Dependable Construction, No. 5-07-0684 (Ill. 5th Feb. 13, 2009), Herbert and Jeral Dean Kunkel sued P.K. Dependable Construction for failing to adequately replace their roof and adding new leaks. They also alleged that P.K. failed to provide the consumer rights pamphlet required under the Illinois Home Repair and Remodeling Act. Their lawsuit alleged breach of contract and warranty and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

The Kunkels hired P.K. in July of 2003 to replace their roof, which had been leaking over their porch but nowhere else. The contract included a five-year warranty for defects and said P.K. would check for sheeting damage after tearing off shingles and make any repairs necessary for an additional fee. Mrs. Kunkel testified that during the work, she witnessed P.K. employees knocking loose the home’s stucco siding. When she complained, they patched the areas with cement. Aside from some sheeting damage, the work proceeded without incident and the Kunkels paid in full. Unfortunately, it rained a few days later and the Kunkels discovered leaks inside their home. They estimate that P.K. made 20 to 25 attempts over the next three years to fix the leaks, but not all were successful. They entered into evidence an estimate of $1,475 to repair the water damage to their kitchen ceiling.

At a bench trial, a roofing contractor hired by the Kunkels testified that the best way to fix the problem was to remove and replace the roof for an estimate of $5,250. A P.K. employee, Tim Utley, testified that damage he had seen to the sheeting suggested that there were leaks before his company did its work. He also contradicted Mrs. Kunkel’s testimony on the stucco siding, saying he did not tear it up and that it would be impossible to do what their roofing expert suggested because the condition of the stucco was so poor. Utley said he told Mr. Kunkel that he should replace the stucco siding because that was the source of the leaks, testimony that the Kunkels dispute. In the end, the court found for the Kunkels, awarding them $6,725 in compensatory damages (the amount of the kitchen ceiling and roof replacement estimates) and $6,151.50 in attorney fees and court costs. After a motion to reconsider was denied, P.K. appealed.

The Fifth District started with P.K.’s contention that the trial court’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial judge had to resolve conflicts in the evidence, the court wrote, but there was plenty of evidence to support the way the judge resolved it. Thus, the Fifth declined to disturb that ruling. It next turned to the question of whether damages were correctly set. The damages were based on estimates submitted by the Kunkel’s expert and another contractor. This follows Illinois law requiring damages for defective workmanship to reflect the cost of correcting the defects, the court said. Again, witnesses for P.K. testified otherwise, but the Fifth District declined to second-guess the trial judge. And attacks on the sufficiency of the estimate came late, the court said, because P.K. did not challenge its admission into evidence at the time or cross-examine the expert about it. Thus, the damages stand.

Next, the Fifth examined P.K.’s challenge to the Kunkel’s attorney fees award. The Consumer Fraud Act allows plaintiffs to recover attorney fees, the court wrote, but they must prove actual damages. In this case, that finding was based on the trial court’s determination that P.K. violated the section of the Home Repair and Remodeling Act requiring it to provide a consumer rights pamphlet. It’s true that undisputed evidence shows that P.K. did not provide the pamphlet, the court wrote, but the Act requires that violations be knowing to be actionable. No evidence is in the record showing knowledge or state of mind, the court wrote, so there was no violation of the Act. The court also noted that there was no evidence showing that P.K.’s failure to provide the pamphlet caused actual damages. Finally, it disagreed with the trial court’s finding that P.K. failed to complete its work, which would also violate the Act, because it did not believe the Legislature intended to equate defective performance with no performance at all. Thus, it vacated the attorney fee award.

Appeals Court Upholds Verdict in Case Over Storage Company Incorrectly Selling Property

December 29, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Our Chicago consumer protection attorneys were pleased to see a pro-consumer decision from the First District Court of Appeal recently. In Dubey v. Public Storage Inc., Ill. 1st No. 1-09-0094 (Oct. 23. 2009), the appeals court upheld a decision in favor of a woman who lost everything in her storage unit due to a record-keeping error. Varitka Dubey made all of her payments for a rented storage unit on time, but Metropublic Storage Fund repossessed all of the property in her unit and sold it at auction for “nonpayment.” The problem that turned out to apply to a different unit. This decision upholds a jury’s award in Dubey’s favor, but reduces the amount to conform to her agreement to store no more than $5,000 worth of property.

Dubey entered the storage unit rental agreement in September of 2002. At that time, she signed an agreement that the property she would store would be worth no more than $5,000 and that Metropublic wouldn’t be responsible for losses of more than that amount. The agreement also said that Metropublic could pursue all legal remedies if Dubey failed to meet her obligations under the agreement. Dubey testified in court that she did not notice the unit listed on her rental agreement, nor was it emphasized by the Metropublic employee who helped her. She then moved personal property into the unit that she claimed was worth $150,000. She visited the unit several more times through the end of 2002. Her rent was automatically charged to a credit card and always paid on time.

In February of 2003, Dubey returned to her unit and discovered that her key didn’t work. A Metropublic employee told her that the unit was not hers. The employee opened the unit and Dubey discovered that nearly all of her property was gone except for some broken toys belonging to her daughters. Further investigation showed that records showed someone else was listed as the owner of the unit Dubey had used, and that Dubey’s rental agreement listed a different unit. At trial, testimony showed that the unit had already been rented to someone else. The employee told Dubey her property had been auctioned off in January for non-payment of the rent, for total proceeds of $99,145. Dubey asked about personal items like family photos and was told that they were probably thrown out, but denied permission to search the garbage.

Dubey sued Metropublic for breach of contract, conversion and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Metropublic countersued for breach of contract because Dubey stored property worth more than $5,000 in her unit. At trial, the jury found for Dubey on all counts, awarding her
$755,000 in compensatory and punitive damages on the common-law claims and $276,580 in compensatory and punitive damages for the Consumer Fraud Act claims. She was also awarded attorney fees. Both parties appealed, with Dubey asking for more compensatory damages to reflect the true value of the lost property, and Metropublic arguing that Dubey shouldn’t have been awarded three different recoveries for the same injury and that she shouldn’t have been awarded more than the $5,000 listed in the contract. It also disputed the decision, the punitive damages and the attorney fees.

The First’s analysis started by agreeing that, under Illinois law, Dubey may recover only once for the breach of contract and conversion claims. Thus, it reduced the compensatory damages for those claims to $5,000 from $10,000. However, its analysis did not extend to the Consumer Fraud Act, and it let the $69,145 awarded under that count stand. The court then addressed the claim that the Consumer Fraud Act award should not have been larger than $5,000. The court found that Metropublic had waived that issue by ignoring chances to bring it up before and during trial. But even if it were not waived, the court declined to reconsider the trial court’s finding that the clause was an exculpatory clause invalid under the Landlord and Tenant Act. In addition to dismissing Metropublic’s arguments, the court found the contract unconscionable because Dubey had no time to read it closely and Metropublic didn’t stress the $5,000 limit.

The court then dispensed with every argument Metropublic made except its argument that the punitive damages award is unconstitutional. Among the tests for whether a punitive award is unconstitutionally excessive is the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages. The U.S. Supreme Court said in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 425, 155 L. Ed. 2d 585, 605-06, 123 S. Ct. 1513, 1524 (2003) that very few ratios significantly exceeding single digits will satisfy due process. The ratio for the conversion award was 149 to 1, a disparity the First found disturbing. It also found that Dubey may be entitled to more compensatory damages for her losses, since the it had found the rental contract invalid. Thus, it vacated those two damages awards and sent them back to trial court for reconsideration.