Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Covenant Not to Compete Ruled Unenforceable for Failing to Comply With State Law – Elite Coil Tubing Solutions v. Guillory

May 31, 2013 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

An appellate court in Louisiana affirmed an order granting partial summary judgment to the defendants in a lawsuit over a purported covenant not to compete. The court held in Elite Coil Tubing Solutions v. Guillory that the plaintiff company failed to meet its evidentiary burden to enforce a non-compete agreement under Louisiana law, which generally disfavors such agreements. In addition to failing to identify specific parishes in which the non-compete agreement should apply, the court held that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the nature of the business prohibited by the non-compete agreement.

The plaintiff, Elite Coil Tubing Solutions, LLC, provides oilfield services, with a principal business location in Caddo Parish, Louisiana. The company employed the defendant, Weldon Guillory, as Manager of Operations from June 15, 2006 until Guillory’s resignation on October 15, 2010. It also employed defendant Bobby Gill from July 15, 2008 until his resignation on December 18, 2010.

Guillory signed an employment contract with Elite in 2006, which included a non-compete agreement. That part of the contract provided that, while employed by Elite and for a period of two years afterwards, Guillory would not own or accept employment with a business in direct competition with Elite anywhere within two hundred miles of any of Elite’s business locations. It also provided that, in the event of breach or threatened breach by Guillory, Elite could obtain a temporary injunction without a bond, and that it would be entitled to liquidated damages of $250,000. Gill did not sign an employment contract when he began working for Elite.

Decision in Kohl’s Case Reversed and Class Claim Regarding Use of Alleged Fake Sales Prices Allowed to Proceed — Our Chicago Class Action Lawyers Enabled Illinois Consumers to Collect Substantial Class Action Recoveries

May 29, 2013 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Many times people buy things because they are on sale that they would not have bought otherwise. The idea of a good deal is a powerful motivator for shoppers and many retailers our Chicago class action lawyers have observed take advantage of that fact. Kohl’s is currently facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly advertising certain items as being marked down between 32 and 50 percent from their “original” prices when those items were not, in fact, marked down at all.

Antonio Hinojos bought a Samsonite suitcase at Kohl’s that was advertised as being 50% off of its original price of $299.99. He also bought some shirts that were allegedly marked as being on sale for 32 to 40 percent less than their original prices.

However, Hinojos alleges in his lawsuit that the items were, in fact, not marked down at all, and that their supposed “sale” prices were the same as the prices the items regularly sold for. Hinojos says that, had he known that, he never would have purchased the items.

A district court dismissed the lawsuit, saying that, because Hinojos got the items he wanted, he could not show that he had lost any money as a result of the alleged false advertising.
The 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed the ruling. In the court’s 21-page opinion, it argued that Hinojos demonstrated that he had lost money as a result of the false advertising, “because the bargain hunter’s expectations about the product he just purchased is precisely that it has a higher perceived value and therefore has a higher resale value.”

The court stated that advertisements such as “not available in stores”, “available for a limited time only”, “the same model shoe worn by LeBron James”, and “more doctors recommend our product than any other brand” are not examples of false advertising. However, the court finds this case to be distinctly different from those claims.

The court went on to enumerate that, in this case, “Hinojos specifically and plausibly alleges that Kohl’s falsely markets its products at reduced prices precisely because consumers such as himself reasonably regard price reductions as material information when making purchasing decisions.”

The court also rejected Kohl’s motion to certify the matter to the California Supreme Court. Kohl’s did not do so until after the oral arguments, at which point it perceived that the judges were not sympathetic to its position. According to the court, “Kohl’s conduct regarding certification violated both our rule against belated certification requests and our long-standing prohibition against a party’s use of procedural motions to avoid having its appeal decided by a panel it perceives as unfavorable.”

Chicago Class Action Attorneys at DiTommaso Lubin Obtain Certification of Nationwide Class

May 28, 2013 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Judge Certifies Nationwide Class in Lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch
A nationwide class has been certified in a lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch for allegedly voiding gift cards issued to customers as part of a 2009 winter holiday promotion despite the fact that the gift cards stated “No Expiration Date.” Class counsel, DiTommaso Lubin, PC and Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C., has created a website http://www.abercrombieclassaction.com where potential class members can obtain more information and review important documents and dates.

A nationwide class has been certified in a lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch for allegedly voiding gift cards issued to customers as part of a 2009 winter holiday promotion despite the fact that the gift cards stated “No Expiration Date.”
Chicago, IL (PRWEB) May 24, 2013
A judge in the Northern District of Illinois has certified a nationwide class in a class action lawsuit filed against Abercrombie & Fitch (case no.10-cv-04866). The lawsuit, filed by Tiffany Boundas through her attorneys DiTommaso Lubin, PC and Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C., alleges that Abercrombie and abercrombie kids issued $25 gift cards to customers as part of a 2009 in-store winter holiday promotion. Abercrombie then voided the gift cards a couple months later despite language on the cards that stated “No Expiration Date.” By doing so, the lawsuit contends, Abercrombie breached its contracts with customers. The lawsuit seeks a payment of the value of the gift cards that customers could not redeem as a result of Abercrombie’s actions. Abercrombie contends that more than $5 million is at issue in this lawsuit.

Copies of the Complaint, the judge’s opinion certifying the class, and the Class Notice can be obtained by going to http://www.abercrombieclassaction.com.

The judge has set a July 20, 2013 deadline for class members to exclude themselves from the class. For more information and to learn other important dates in this case, please visit http://www.abercrombieclassaction.com.

DiTommaso Lubin, PC is a law firm committed to fighting for consumer’s rights. With over two and a half decades of experience litigating class action lawsuits across the nation, the attorneys at DiTommaso Lubin, PC have recovered millions of dollars for consumers. DiTommaso Lubin, PC has offices in downtown Chicago and throughout the Chicagoland area. To learn more about DiTommaso Lubin, PC or to contact one of its attorneys please visit https://www.chicagobusinesslawfirm.com.

Breach of Contract Claims May Proceed in Putative Class Action Against Health Spa Chain, According to Illinois Federal Court – Grabianski v. Bally Total Fitness — Our Chicago Class Action Lawyers Pursue Consumer Rights Class Actions

May 28, 2013 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Our Chicago class action lawyers have noted a recent decision where an Illinois federal court dismissed several claims in a putative class action lawsuit against a nationwide chain of health spas, but allowed two causes of action for breach of contract to proceed. Grabianski, et al v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., et al, No. 12 C 284, memorandum opinion and order (N.D. Ill., Feb. 21, 2013) (the “2013 Order”). The dismissed claims alleged additional breaches of contract and violations of state consumer protection statutes. The court had dismissed the plaintiffs’ original complaint in the same cause, granting them leave to amend, in an order dated September 11, 2012 (the “2012 Order”).

The plaintiffs purchased memberships at Bally Total Fitness (“Bally”), a nationwide chain of gyms, during a period from 1986 until 2002. They all purchased “Premier” or “Premier Plus” memberships, which gave them the right to use any Bally location in the country. Bally allowed transfer of these membership plans, so while some of the plaintiffs purchased their plans directly from Bally, others obtained them in a secondary market. After declaring bankruptcy, Bally sold 171 of its clubs, more than half of its total, to LA Fitness, subject to an Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) dated November 30, 2011. According to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, LA Fitness assumed their membership agreements as part of the sale.

Plaintiffs allege that after the sale was completed, they were denied access to Bally clubs now owned by LA Fitness. They claim that LA Fitness denied them access because their “home clubs,” where their memberships originated, were not part of the APA. In the cases of plaintiffs who acquired their memberships via a secondary market, the “home club” might be in a different state. While the plaintiffs could still access clubs that Bally owned, they did not live near any of those clubs.

Viacom Sued in TCPA Class Action For Allegedly Sending Out Unsolicited Text Messages — Our Chicago Class Action Lawyers File Unsolicited Text Message and Fax Class Actions

May 22, 2013 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

With all the spam that companies tend to send out, it’s no wonder that most people carefully guard their telephone numbers. Many people, however, don’t think of the fact that they are giving their number to every person and company that they call or send text messages to. In a recent class-action lawsuit against MTV’s parent company, Viacom, plaintiffs allege that the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending promotional texts to people who voted in the 2011 Video Music Awards.

The lead plaintiff in the case, Erin Mock, voted in the 2011 Video Music Awards via text message and was allegedly bombarded with promotional text messages shortly thereafter. According to the lawsuit, one such message read “MTV: ‘Jersey Shore’ sneak peek of tonight’s episode – why is Snooki lying in a bush? Watch”. Another said, “MTV: ‘Real World San Diego’ premieres Wednesday, Sept. 28 at 10/9c”.

The lawsuit alleges that, during the VMA solicitation for votes, viewers were never warned that, by voting, “they would be consenting to receipt of future text SPAM advertisements from Defendant and/or its subsidiaries and/or employees and/or agents”.

Mock further alleges that she sent a text message asking to stop receiving these text advertisements. She received a confirmation that the text messages would stop, but she allegedly received another such message (this one with a link to a “Real World” trailer) after she received her confirmation.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Tennessee, alleges that the “Plaintiff and the members of the Class and Sub-Class have all suffered irreparable harm as a result of the Defendant’s unlawful and wrongful conduct”. The suit is seeking $1,500 per alleged violation for each member of the class, as well as an injunctive relief against such conduct in the future.

Chicago Tribune Settles Class Action Alleging Subscribers Overcharged

May 21, 2013 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Once a subscriber gives a company their credit/debit card or bank information to charge subscription fees, some companies will take advantage of that to raise their fees without notifying their subscribers. Such is allegedly the case with the Chicago Tribune.
Cheryl Naedler and Theodore Raab, two Tribune subscribers, filed a class-action lawsuit against the company in the Circuit Court of Cook County. The lawsuit alleges that the Chicago Tribune breached its contract with subscribers and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act by charging an inflated subscription fee, without warning subscribers at least 30 days in advance of the change.

According to the class counsel, what the Chicago Tribune should have done, “is send notice at least one billing cycle in advance saying we’re going to increase it … if you agree to pay. And they didn’t do it.”

Our Chicago class action lawyers note that the Chicago Tribune recently began mailing out a proposed offer to settle the lawsuit. Although the company denies the allegations, it said that it reached the settlement to, “avoid the cost, risk, and delay of litigation and uncertainty of trial” according to the notice.

If the court approves the settlement, about 41,000 subscribers will receive $6.50 each as part of the settlement. Naedler and Raab, as the class representatives, will receive $2,000 each.

Sketchers Settles Class Actions Alleging That its Shape-Ups Don’t Really Help Consumers Get in Shape

May 20, 2013 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Many people are on the look-out for a quick fix to lose weight and get in shape. It is therefore no surprise that hundreds of thousands of people took advantage of Skechers’s offer when they introduced shoes that claimed to help people lose weight and tone up.

Skechers’s ads featured celebrity endorsers such as Kim Kardashian and Brooke Burke. The shoe company claimed that its Shape-Ups were designed to promote weight loss and tone butt, leg, and stomach muscles with the shoe’s curved “rocker” or rolling bottom. Skechers said that this caused instability which would cause the wearer of the shoes to “use more energy with every step.” Shape-ups cost about $100 and are sold across the country.

The Resistance Runner shoes were advertised as a fitness tool that could help people who wore them increase “muscle activation” by up to 85% for posture-related muscles and 71% for muscles in the buttocks.

The current lawsuit against Skechers consolidates more than 70 lawsuits from across the country into one lawsuit in federal court in Louisville, Kentucky. U.S. District Judge Thomas B. Russell recently approved the settlement reached between Skechers and the plaintiffs for $40 million. The judge also ordered Skechers to pay an additional $5 million for the attorneys in the case to share. Russell ordered that the money cannot come out of the $40 million settlement.
The two lead plaintiffs in the case will receive payments of $2,500 each.

Those with approved claims will be able to collect repayment for their purchase – up to $80 per pair of Shape-Ups; $84 per pair of Resistance Runners; up to $54 per pair of Podded Sole Shoes; and $40 per pair of Tone-Ups. The settlement covers more than 520,000 claims. About 1,000 people who are eligible for coverage by the settlement opted out.

Eleven objections to the settlement were filed, including people seeking the full purchase price of their shoes and one person saying the settlement would prevent him from seeking damages on his own. The judge rejected all of these arguments.

The settlement comes just one year after Skechers reached a deal with the Federal Trade Commission regarding the ads. A settlement with the Federal Trade Commission bars Skechers from ever again running the ads. If there is any money left over from the $40 million after all of the claims have been processed, the judge has ordered that the remainder of the money is to go to the Federal Trade Commission.

Skechers denies the allegations but said that it is settling in order to avoid a long and costly litigation.

Claim for Fraud in the Sale of a Business Requires Proof of Both Reasonable and Justifiable Reliance on a Misrepresentation – Walid v. Irene Couture

May 17, 2013 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A couple who bought a retail business in New Jersey filed suit for fraud, alleging that the seller materially misrepresented the business’ revenues. After a bench trial, the lower court ruled for the defendants in Walid v. Yolanda for Irene Couture, Inc., holding that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that their reliance on the defendants’ misrepresentations was justified. The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division vacated the judgment, finding the defendants liable for fraud, remanding the case, and instructing the trial court to apportion liability among the defendants.

Anwar and Donna Walid, saw an online listing for the sale of a retail business, Irene’s Bridal Shop. They contacted the listing broker, who gave them a “fact sheet” from the owner, Yolanda for Irene Couture, Inc. (YIC). The fact sheet stated that the business had annual sales exceeding $500,000 and profits of almost $300,000. The listed sales price was $700,000. The Walids agreed to a purchase price of $700,000, subject to “proof of sales” and review by an attorney and an accountant. They retained an attorney, but Mr. Walid decided, against the attorney’s advice, to examine the financial reports himself rather than hire an accountant. YIC’s financial information showed annual income from 2003 through early 2006 well in excess of $500,000. The Walids obtained bank financing, and the sale closed in May 2006.

The business failed, and the Walids filed suit against YIC, its owner, and the accountant who prepared the financial reports Mr. Walid had reviewed prior to the sale. They amended the complaint to include Yolanda Couture, Inc. (YC), a New York company owned by YIC’s owner. They alleged that YC’s revenues were deposited into YIC’s bank accounts in order to inflate YIC’s earnings.

Literary Agent Sued for Allegedly Stealing Rights for “To Kill a Mocking Bird” From Harper Lee

May 17, 2013 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Many people will try to take advantage of the sick and elderly by having them sign away their rights when they are vulnerable. However, when someone in a compromised position signs a legal document, a court of law may choose not to find that document to be binding.

Such is allegedly the case with Harper Lee, the author of “To Kill a Mockingbird”, in signing her copyright over to her agent. Eugene Winick represented Lee for more than 40 years. When Winick fell ill in 2002, his son-in-law, Samuel Pinkus, took over many of Winick’s clients. Lee has recently filed a lawsuit in Manhattan to regain control of her copyright.

According to the lawsuit, in 2007, Pinkus “engaged in a scheme to dupe” the then 80-year-old Lee into signing over her copyright for “To Kill a Mockingbird” without payment. At the time, Lee was recovering from a stroke in an assisted-living facility. The complaint alleges that, “Pinkus knew that Harper Lee was an elderly woman with physical infirmities that made it difficult for her to read and see”. Lee says she has no memory of agreeing to sign over her copyright.

The transfer allegedly secured for Pinkus “irrevocable” interest in the income derived from her book. It also helped him to avoid paying legal obligations to his father-in-law’s company for royalties that Pinkus misappropriated.

Although the copyright was reassigned to Lee last year as a result of a separate legal action, Pinkus was allegedly still receiving royalties from the novel as of this year, the complaint alleges. The current lawsuit is asking that any commissions Pinkus has received since 2007 be returned to Lee.

The lawsuit also claims that Pinkus has failed to provide royalty statements in recent years to explain money earned by the book. Additionally, Pinkus allegedly failed to respond to offers by HarperCollins to discuss licensing e-book rights and did not respond to the publisher’s request for assistance related to the book’s 50th anniversary.

“To Kill a Mockingbird” was published in 1960 and is Lee’s only published book. It is considered a classic and has sold more than 30 million copies.

Does Facebook “Like” Button Give Rise to First Amendment Rights? Federal Appellate Court Set to Decide the Issue.

May 15, 2013 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Many of us use Facebook “likes” every day to express our feelings and opinions on the internet. In fact, according to Facebook, around 3 billions “likes” and comments are made on the social network site on a daily basis. However, it is still a relatively new form of expression and, as such, might not get the protection of the American Constitution’s first amendment.

The issue has been brought before a judge in Hampton, Virginia where a deputy, Daniel Ray Carter, was fired by his sheriff. Carter sued for violation of the First Amendment after he was fired, alleging that he was let go as a result of “liking” the Facebook page of his boss’ political opponent during the town’s 2009 sheriff election. According to the lawsuit, Hampton sheriff B.J. Roberts said to Carter, “You made your bed, now you’re going to lie in it – after the election, you’re gone.” About five months after Roberts’s re-election, Carter was fired, along with five other employees who either supported Carter’s opponent or did not actively campaign for Carter during the election.

U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson dismissed the suit, saying that the U.S. Constitution does not protect clicking the thumbs-up button on a Facebook page. According to Judge Jackson, the “like” button is not substantial enough of a statement to be considered free speech. In his decision, he wrote, “Merely ‘liking’ on a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection.”

An appeal by Carter and his former co-workers is being reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The American Civil Liberties Union has also filed an amicus brief supporting the effort to overturn Judge Jackson’s ruling. To demonstrate the power that a single click can have these days, the ACLU cited re-tweeting, signing a petition, and donating to a campaign online as examples. If the appeals court rules against Carter, the ACLU argues that all of these actions will be ineligible for protection under the Constitution’s first amendment. Rebecca K. Glenberg, the legal director of the ACLU of Virginia, told the Washington Post that “Pressing a ‘like’ button is analogous to other forms of speech, such as putting a button on your shirt with a candidate’s name on it.” The ACLU argues that, as the technological world grows, we must protect the news ways of communication which will inevitably develop.

Facebook has also come forward in support of Carter and the ACLU, saying that a Facebook “like” is the modern equivalent of putting up a front-yard campaign sign. Facebook will get a chance to argue their side of the case before a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The social media company will be allowed three minutes of oral argument when the panel hears the case.