Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Illinois Appellate Courts

Second District Declines to Compel Arbitration Based Only on Oral Agreement

September 16, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Our Illinois alternative dispute resolution lawyers were interested to see an appeals case clarifying that parties can only be compelled to binding arbitration if they have an explicit written contract. In Heider v. Knautz, No. 2-09-0808 (Ill. 2nd Dec.4, 2009), Arlie Heider sued Carl Knautz for injuries arising out of a car accident, including a knee injury. During a September hearing on admission of Heider’s Wisconsin-based attorney to Illinois courts, that attorney asked to suspend his request for admission because both parties had agreed to binding arbitration. The court stayed the case for six months pending the arbitration.

However, some months later, Knautz filed for a protective order preventing Heider from attending the arbitration, saying that during discovery, he had learned that Heider had reinjured his knee in a subsequent car accident, despite statements to the contrary. He wanted to delay the arbitration to conduct further discovery, and because he had changed attorneys, but the plaintiff’s attorney refused to reschedule. The court denied Knautz’s motion, so he filed a motion for judicial determination of whether he could revoke his agreement to arbitrate. In that motion, he said the Illinois Uniform Arbitration Act did not apply because he had signed no written agreement to binding arbitration. The trial court disagreed, finding at Heider’s urging that the Act applies because Knautz agreed on the record during the September hearing that such an agreement existed, and because that hearing was written down and entered into the record. Knautz filed an interlocutory appeal.

After dismissing what it saw as a meritless jurisdictional argument by Heider, the Second District Court of Appeal turned to the merits of Knautz’s appeal. Knautz argued that he should not be compelled to use binding arbitration because he did not sign a formal written agreement to do so. In considering this, the court considered the plain language of the Act, which refers to “a written agreement” or “a provision in a written contract.” This language makes it clear that the Act was intended only to apply to written agreements, the Second wrote. In support, it cited multiple out-of-state cases based on very similar language, as the Illinois Act was adopted from the Uniform Arbitration Act. Furthermore, the court said, there is nothing in the transcript of the September hearing to suggest that the parties intended to make a binding contract to arbitrate.

That order was based on an oral agreement, the court said, and the common law says oral agreements to arbitrate may be revoked anytime before an award is entered. The Act does not abrogate that rule, the court wrote, so Knautz is entitled to revoke his agreement to arbitrate. In fact, it wrote, if it were to decide otherwise, “parties who choose to enter into only an oral agreement could never obtain an order staying trial court proceedings pending arbitration, for fear that such an order would be viewed as a written agreement subjecting them to the Act and thereby destroying the purpose of entering into only an oral agreement for arbitration.” Thus, it reversed the order to arbitrate and remanded the case to trial court.

Treasurer Cannot Commit Resources of Family Business Without Board Authorization, Court Finds

September 7, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

As Illinois closely held business dispute attorneys, we read with interest an appellate decision in a dispute over the extent to which a company officer can act without the board’s approval. In Fritzsche v. LaPlante, No. 2-09-0329 (Ill. 2nd March 2010), the “rogue” officer was M. Christine Rock, the secretary/treasurer for family business Fritzsche Industrial Park, Inc. (FIP), which leases real estate at an industrial park in Lakemoor, Ill. Rock also had power of attorney for her father, Herbert Fritzsche, and those two roles allowed her to lease property to Gregory LaPlante, her longtime live-in boyfriend. Separately, Rock also signed a promissory note to Gerald Shaver as payment for work he had done for FIP. This led to a lawsuit by other family members and corporate members, who alleged that she acted without authorization from the board and that the note and lease were invalid.

FIP was incorporated in 2005, although the family had owned the property for decades before. The other corporate officers were Herbert Fritzsche, president, and Scot Fritzsche, vice president and son of Herbert Fritzsche. Shares of stock were divided among the officers and other sons, daughters and grandchildren, with Herbert Fritzsche getting 68 percent. In July of 2006, Herbert Fritzsche suffered a brain hemorrhage, which affected his health and may have compromised his mental capacity. One result of this was that Rock and LaPlante moved into Herbert Fritzsche’s home after he moved in with another sibling. On the first day of August, Rock signed the lease to LaPlante, which gave him 16 properties at Fritzsche Industrial Park and 10 more owned by Herbert Fritzsche individually. LaPlante was to pay rent in the amount of the property taxes, plus 10 percent of his income, although it was not clear what that income referred to.

A week later, on August 8, Rock signed the promissory note to Shaver in exchange for work done on the property, possibly through his trucking and excavating business. It obligated FIP and Park National Bank, trustee of Herbert Fritzsche’s properties, to pay $450,000 by putting a lien on the properties they owned. Park National Bank did not sign. Three months later, Herbert Fritzsche, FIP, Park National Bank and First Midwest Bank, a trustee for some FIP properties, sued Rock and LaPlante, alleging Rock was not authorized to commit the company’s or her father’s resources. The complaint alleged that Rock was suspected of stealing rents from FIP to pay her personal expenses and refused to provide documentation of rental income, which led to a shareholder decision to remove her as secretary/treasurer in May of that year. After his illness, Herbert also allegedly revoked her power of attorney. Therefore, plaintiffs alleged, Rock had no authority to enter into the lease or the note, and they were invalid. They also claimed the rental agreement was too vague to be enforced.

During the next two years, discovery in the case moved very slowly, possibly because Rock and LaPlante also faced criminal prosecution for theft, conspiracy and financial exploitation of an elderly person. In December of 2008, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. They argued that even if Rock was not properly removed as power of attorney and a corporate officer, Illinois law does not allow her to enter into the lease or the note without the board’s approval. They also argued that FIP’s bylaws required approval of the note because it was a form of debt. Defendants responded that the board knew about the lease through e-mails sent among the members, and that no board approval was necessary for the lease and the note because Rock was exercising Herbert’s executive authority through the POA, and because many properties were owned by individual family members rather than the board. After oral arguments, the board granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, saying Rock did not have the authority to act unilaterally as a matter of law. This appeal followed.

Because it was an appeal of a summary judgment order, the Second noted, it had only to decide whether there were genuine issues of material fact to try. Nonetheless, it found that the defendants failed to meet that standard. Under common law, the court said, the highest officer of a corporation must still get board approval to make contracts, especially ones that are unusual or extraordinary. The lease is such an unusual contract, it wrote, because it involved no trustees for the properties and provided LaPlante with the land for little or nothing. Rock also needed board approval for the lease under the Illinois Business Corporation Act, which requires corporate formalities for transactions involving “substantially all” the corporation’s assets. The lease covered all of the property in the industrial park, the court noted, thus making it impossible for FIP to continue its business.

The court came to similar conclusions about the note. However, in this case, the main support for voiding the note came from FIP’s bylaws. Those bylaws say loans and other forms of indebtedness must be authorized by a board resolution. No such resolution exists, the court said, but the note clearly puts a $450,000 lien on FIP. The appeals court noted that the Business Corporations Act requires board approval for actions outside the ordinary course of business, but believed that the bylaws argument was stronger. Thus, the appeals court upheld the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs.

Newspaper Not Liable for Police Report Mistake Under Fair Report Privilege

August 31, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

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 James V. DiTommaso

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 James V. DiTommaso

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 James V. DiTommaso

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 James V. DiTommaso

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 James V. DiTommaso

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 James V. DiTommaso

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 James V. DiTommaso

DiTommaso Lubin 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.