Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Illinois Appellate Court Dismisses Lawsuit Between Truck Manufacturer and Franchisee

December 22, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

DiTommaso Lubin represents clients from many industries who operate all kinds of businesses, including both franchisors and franchisees. Our Aurora business attorneys came across an appellate decision from the Fourth District here in Illinois that involves a dispute that arose out of a franchise agreement between a heavy-duty truck manufacturer and a truck dealer.

Crossroads Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Sterling Truck Corp. is a disagreement that came about after the two parties entered into a sales and service agreement where Plaintiff Crossroads had the right to purchase Sterling Trucks and vehicle parts from Defendants and Defendants “reserved the right to discontinue at any time the manufacture or sale” of their parts or change the design or specs of any products without prior notice to Plaintiff. Several years after entering the agreement, Defendants allegedly announced that they were discontinuing the production of Sterling trucks and that Detroit Diesel Corporation (the truck’s engine manufacturer) would cease accepting orders as well. Defendant sent written notice of these decisions to Plaintiffs. Defendants decided to discontinue manufacture of the Sterling vehicles allegedly because they were duplicative of other vehicles manufactured by Sterling’s parent company.

In response to this notice, Plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act, fraud, and tortious interference with contract. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on all counts, which was granted in part by the trial court because Defendants’ discontinuance and re-branding of the Sterling brand constituted good cause for terminating the contract. Plaintiff then filed an interlocutory appeal for the trial court’s partial dismissal.

The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the violations of sections 4(d)(1) of the Franchise Act because Plaintiffs failed to allege specific facts supporting each element of violation under the Act and instead merely made conclusory allegations for each violation. The Court also found that the allegations under section 9 of the Act were improperly plead, as Plaintiff’s allegations contained only conclusions without the specific facts required by the Act. The Court then upheld the lower court’s ruling as to the allegations under section 9.5 of the Act because the sales and service agreement remained in effect and had not been terminated. Next the Court found the dismissal of the fraud claims to be proper because Plaintiff failed to allege a misrepresentation of a present fact and dismissed the claims under section 4(b) of the act because Defendant’s conduct was neither arbitrary nor in bad faith. Finally, the Court did not address the alleged 4(d)(6) violations due to a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, as such violations are within the purview of the Review Board under section 12(d) of the Act.

Federal Court Indicates Equitable Tolling Only Available in FLSA Cases When There is Evidence of Deception by Defendants

December 1, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

DiTommaso Lubin handles wage and hour class action litigation on a regular basis, and many of our clients’ claims are based upon violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Our Schaumburg unpaid overtime attorneys were interested to see a recent class-action brought by restaurant workers alleging violations of the FLSA.

Cao v. Wu Liang Ye Lexington Rest., Inc. is a suit filed by twenty-four employees of two restaurants in New York City. The employees worked as waiters, delivery workers, and a food packer for Defendants and filed suit for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, illegal tip deductions, expense reimbursement for the purchase and maintenance of bicycles and uniforms. Plaintiffs also sought statutory liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs filed for default, which was granted by the Court. Plaintiffs subsequently submitted their damages calculations and Defendants opposed Plaintiffs’ application for damages on the basis that Plaintiffs’ calculations were inflated and Defendants’ violations of the FLSA were not willful.

The Court addressed Defendants’ arguments by first discussing the applicable law. The limitations period for FLSA claims is generally two years, but is three years for defendants that willfully break the law. The Court then ruled that the three year statute of limitations was applicable because Defendants defaulted and therefore admitted Plaintiffs’ willfulness allegations. The Court also found the longer statute of limitations applied because Defendants admitted that they did not try to learn about the FLSA’s requirements until just prior to the commencement of the lawsuit. Plaintiffs argued that they should receive unpaid wages for the entirety of their employment under the doctrine of equitable tolling due to the fact that Defendants failed to post a notice explaining the FLSA in plain view of employees. The Court saw no reason to extend Plaintiffs’ claims beyond the statutory three year period because Defendants’ had not engaged in any sort of deception or other exceptional activity, and prior case law held that equitable tolling only applies in unusual circumstances. The Court finished by granting Plaintiffs damages for unpaid minimum wage, overtime wages, unlawful tip deductions, reimbursement for bicycle expenses, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees.

The Court denied reimbursement for uniform expenses because most of the clothing worn by employees could be “worn as a part of the employees’ ordinary wardrobe.” Plaintiffs did also wear a red vest that could be considered outside an ordinary wardrobe, but there was no evidence in the record that Plaintiffs’ incurred expenses obtaining or cleaning the red vests.

Cao v. Wu Liang Ye Lexington Rest., Inc. provides future wage and hour litigants with several lessons when it comes to preparing damages applications. First and foremost, courts are unlikely to apply equitable tolling to extend the FLSA’s statute of limitations in the absence of intentional deception or fraud by defendants. Additionally, this case serves as a reminder that employees should keep accurate records of work related expenses if they wish to recover damages under the FLSA.

Appellate Court Rules that Adding an Arbitration Clause to an Insurance Agreement Does Not Constitute a Change in Coverage under Illinois Law

November 10, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Workers’ compensation insurance is a necessary part of doing business for many companies, so the attorneys at DiTommaso Lubin are always on the lookout for emerging legal issues in that area. Our Naperville business attorneys recently discovered a decision rendered by the Appellate Court of Illinois that is significant for current and potential clients who have workers’ compensation insurance agreements that contain an arbitration clause.

All-American Roofing, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Company pits Plaintiff All-American Roofing against its Defendant insurer, Zurich American in a lawsuit that arose from alleged unpaid deductibles and retrospective insurance premiums. The five-year insurance agreement was based upon retrospectively rated premiums that required Plaintiff to reimburse Defendant after the end of a policy year for claims that arose during that year. After the fourth year, the policy exchanged the retrospectively rated premiums for a larger deductible. The dispute began when Defendant summoned Plaintiff to arbitration regarding the aforementioned unpaid sums pursuant to a mandatory arbitration clause contained within the parties’ agreement. In response to the arbitration summons, All-American Roofing filed for declaratory judgment along with claims for breach of contract, fraud, and related causes of action. Plaintiff requested that the trial court declare that the mandatory arbitration clause was unenforceable and sought damages for their other claims. The trial court stayed the arbitration, dismissed most of Plaintiffs claims through summary judgment and ordered the parties to arbitrate the remaining issues. Plaintiff then appealed the trial court’s rulings regarding the arbitration clause, contract, and fraud claims.

On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the arbitration clause was added to their policy after the first year of coverage and that the clause constituted a material alteration to the policy’s coverage. Furthermore, Plaintiff argued that the Illinois Insurance Code required Defendant to give notice that it was not renewing the original coverage. Because Defendant failed to give such notice, the arbitration clause did not legally take effect. The Appellate Court disagreed, stating that the addition of an arbitration clause did not constitute a change in coverage, and cited the plain language of the statute for their reasoning. The Court went on to hold that the agreements and subsequent addenda to it for the first two years were valid because the parties lawfully entered into the agreements and there was sufficient consideration on both sides. The Court also upheld the trial courts granting of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s fraud claim because there was not sufficient evidence in the record of fraud nor had Plaintiffs identified any material issue regarding Defendant’s alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The Court held that the arbitration clause was not operative for the final two year of the agreement because Plaintiffs never signed the amended policy documents for those years. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court on this issue because they disagreed with the trial court’s ruling that Plaintiff’s payment and acceptance of coverage signified acceptance of the new terms.

All-American Roofing, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Company provides a valuable lesson to business owners who utilize arbitration clauses in their contracts. Namely, this case tells us to read the fine print in any contract before signing it, as you may be getting more (or less, depending on your point of view) than you originally bargained for.

The Commonality and Numerosity Requirements in Missouri Class Action Certification – Doyle v. Fluor Corp.

October 20, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

“Commonality” and “Numerosity” are two of a handful of factors that most courts consider in deciding whether to allow a toxic dumping lawsuit to proceed as a class action. In Doyle v. Fluor Corp., a Missouri appellate court explains these requirements and how they should be applied in a particular matter.

Plaintiffs brought the action alleging that Defendants, owners and operators of a smelting (the process by which metal is extracted from ore) business in Herculaneum, Missouri, released lead, heavy metals and other toxic substances into the air, which in turn caused damage to real property in the surrounding area. Plaintiffs sought damages under theories of negligence, private nuisance, strict liability, and trespass. The trial court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the matter as a class action with the class representatives suing on behalf of nearly 400 people who “own and occupy” residential real property in the area near Defendants’ operation.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals for Missouri’s Eastern District upheld the decision to certify the class. A class may be certified under Missouri law where: 1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; 2) common questions of law or fact exist among the class; 3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of that of the class; and 4) the representative parties are able to fairly and adequately protect the class’ interest. In addition, a court considering certification must also determine that the common factual or legal questions “predominate over any questions affecting only individual members” and that a class action is more suitable than other methods to fairly and efficiently adjudicate the issue.

In affirming the trial court’s decision, the court noted that the “commonality” requirement does not mean that all issues in a particular action be common to all class members, but instead that the common issues predominate over the others. “A single common issue may be the overriding one in a matter, despite the existence of numerous remaining individual questions,” the court ruled. In this case, several of the action’s central issues were shared among the class, including whether Defendants were responsible for emitting toxic metals in to the air; whether such an act constitutes negligence; and whether the pollution caused property in Herculaneum to be contaminated.

llinois Appellate Court Rules that a Relocation Provision in a Commercial Lease Must Abide by State Regulations

October 20, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Earlier this year, the Appellate Court of Illinois handed down an opinion that has implications for businesses with leased premises. Our Aurora business attorneys found Bright Horizons Children’s Centers LLC v. Riverway Midwest LLC, which is a dispute regarding a commercial lease that was initially filed in Cook County.

Bright Horizons is a company that operates day care facilities across the state of Illinois. The company entered into a ten year commercial lease agreement with Riverway for a property in Rosemont, Illinois. The lease agreement contained restrictive language allowed for the building to only be used for a child-care center. The agreement also contained a relocation provision which gave Riverway the right to relocate Bright Horizons, upon 180 day written notice, to a different property of equal quantity and quality to the original premises. The dispute between these two parties arose when Riverway sought to invoke the relocation clause less than one year into the lease.

Riverway attempted to exercise the relocation provision on three occasions. The first attempt was unsuccessful because the alternative premises allegedly presented to Bright Horizons did not meet the requirements of the lease agreement. Bright Horizons accepted the second space offered by Riverway, but Riverway withdrew their notice before renovating the new facilities to meet the requirements of the lease. Riverway then proposed a third relocation premises, and allegedly informed Bright Horizons that if they were unable to agree on an alternative space, Riverway would terminate the lease in 180 days from the date of the notice. This third property allegedly ran afoul of state licensing standards for child care facilities and the Illinois Administrative Code. Bright Horizons informed Riverway that the third property did not meet Illinois’ licensing standards and could not be legally used as a child care facility. In response, Riverway informed Bright Horizons that they were in default of the lease and that Bright Horizons could cure their default by relocating to the third alternative premises.

Bright Horizons then filed for declaratory judgment requesting that the trial court find: 1) that they were not in breach of the lease, 2) that Riverway could not terminate the lease, and 3) that Riverway had failed to properly exercise the relocation clause of the lease agreement. Bright Horizons then filed for summary judgment on these issues, which was granted by the trial court. Riverway then appealed the trial court’s ruling. On appeal the Appellate Court agreed with the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Bright Horizons. In so ruling, the Court held that the lease allowed for one permitted use of the premises and required that Bright Horizons comply with all laws and regulations, including the state child-care licensing standards. The Court held that Bright Horizons’ relocation to the proffered space would violate state regulations and cause Bright Horizons to be in breach of the lease due to their inability to operate a child-care. As such, the Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Bright Horizons.

Consideration in Illinois Noncompete Agreements: How Much Is Enough? LKQ Corporation v. Thrasher

October 15, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

In order to hold an employee or former employee liable under an agreement not to compete, an employer must offer the employee some form of consideration in exchange for the employee’s promise not to compete with the employer. The Northern District of Illinois tackles the difficult question of how much consideration is enough in LKQ Corporation v. Thrasher.

Plaintiff LKQ Corporation is a national automobile parts supplier. In January 2010, Plaintiff hired Defendant Corey Thrasher as a Sales Representative, handling accounts in the Northwest United States. Defendant signed a noncompete agreement shortly after he was hired, allegedly stating that he would not compete with Plaintiff nor solicit Plaintiff’s customers during his employment and for one year following the end thereof. The noncompete agreement also included a forum selection clause designating that any actions related to the contract be raised in Illinois and considered under Illinois law.

One year later, Defendant resigned from his position, effective February 2011. On the day he resigned, Defendant allegedly contacted a number of Plaintiff’s customers via email, telling them that he had taken a similar position with B&R Auto Wrecking, Inc. and that he was looking forward to continuing to work with these customers. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has continued to solicit LKQ customers to purchase B&R merchandise and that several LKQ clients have decreased their business with LKQ as a result.

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the non-compete agreement. The court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the action, in which he argued that the agreement lacked sufficient consideration to be enforceable. The court concluded that Plaintiff received continued employment for a “substantial period” following the execution of the agreement, which constituted adequate consideration, and therefore the agreement was enforceable.
In order for a contract to be enforceable, the promises therein must be given in exchange for consideration. Typically, consideration is anything of value received in exchange for a promise. In the employment context, however, a party seeking to enforce an noncompete agreement must prove that sufficient consideration was given in exchange for the promise not to compete because the simple benefit of continued employment is illusory: employment is at will and a person who signs a noncompete agreement can still be fired at any time. Thus, only continued employment for a “substantial period” or some other form of consideration is sufficient to support a noncompete agreement.

Appellate Court Overturns Grant of Summary Judgment in Successor Liability Case

October 9, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

For many business owners, they operate their companies with the hopes that they will continue to be successful ventures long after they are gone. However, both low level and senior personnel eventually move on, and businesses may have obligations to their surviving family members. DiTommaso Lubin is familiar with such agreements, and often times companies may not wish to honor those obligations after employees are no longer working for the company. Pielet v. Pielet is one case discovered by our Crystal Lake business litigation lawyers that addresses that very issue.

In Pielet v. Pielet, Arthur Pielet allegedly entered into a consulting agreement with Defendants that provided him lifelong monthly payments in exchange for his consulting services for Defendants scrap metal business, and should he pass on, those payments were to continue and be paid to his wife until her death. Arthur Pielet eventually died, and Defendants then allegedly ceased making payments to his widow, who filed suit alleging a breach of contract and successor liability among other causes of action. Plaintiff successfully filed a motion for summary judgment, and Defendants appealed the trial court’s decision.

On appeal, Plaintiff argued that Defendant PBS One, a successor in interest to Pielet Corp. (the company who was originally obligated under the consulting agreement), was liable under the agreement because they had entered into a purchase and assignment agreement with Pielet Corp. In response, PBS One argued that a novation had occurred whereby Pielet LP had substituted for Pielet Corp. in the consulting agreement, which absolved PBS One of liability. PBS One supported their claims with deposition testimony that, in the absence of providing a defense, at least raised an issue of material fact as to the existence of the novation. Additionally, PBS One argued that because the company had dissolved four years prior to the cessation of payments (and the accrual of Plaintiff’s claims), the applicable Illinois Survival Statute prevented Plaintiff’s claim.

The Appellate Court began with its analysis of the Survival Statute, and found that the statute applies to “rights”, “liabilities”, and “causes of action.” Because the case at bar concerned Plaintiff’s “right” to payment and Defendants’ “liability” to pay, and Plaintiff raised her claim to payment within the five-year period allowed under the statute, her claim was allowed under the law. The Court went on to discuss Defendant’s second argument regarding the existence of a novation that would place liability elsewhere. The Court did not make a finding of a novation, but the facts indicated that a novation could be inferred at two different points in time. Thus, the Court concluded that a triable fact question existed as to whether a novation occurred, and if there was a novation, at what point in time did it occur. In so holding, the Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on all of the appealed causes of action, and remanded the case.

Injunctive Relief for the Breach of a Noncompete Agreement in Illinois – EBN Enterprises, Inc. v. CL Creative Images, Inc.

October 8, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A noncompete agreement typically protects a business that discloses confidential information or business practices to another business or individual from having that information later used against it in competition. Such agreements are generally enforceable and even standard in a wide variety of industries. However, just because a business can prove that someone violated a noncompete agreement does not mean that the business can prevent that person or entity from continuing to do so. In EBN Enterprises, Inc. v. CL Creative Images, Inc., the Northern District of Illinois explains the additional hoops that a party to a noncompete agreement must jump through in order to get an injunction preventing another party from continuing to breach the agreement.

Defendants owned a hair salon and operated it under a franchise agreement with Plaintiffs, the owners of the “Fantastic Sams” salon trade name and operation. The 10-year agreement allegtedly allowed Defendants to use the Fantastic Sams name and trademarks for Defendants’ salon. In return, Defendants agreed to pay a weekly royalty fee and a portion of certain costs. Defendants also agreed that they would not have any connection with a hair care business located within five miles of any Fantastic Sams salon for two years following the agreement’s termination.

The parties allegedly repudiated the agreement shortly before its termination and Defendants continued to operate a salon – now under the name “Corda’s Hair Salon” – at the same location. Plaintiffs filed suit, seeking an injunction preventing Defendants from operating a hair salon within five miles of the Fantastic Sams salon that Defendants previously operated. In order to obtain such relief, the court stated that Plaintiffs must show that: 1) they will suffer irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction; 2) traditional legal remedies will not adequately remedy the harm; and 3) their claim has some likelihood of success on the merits.

Plaintiffs made the requisite showing of success on the merits – a “greater than negligible chance of winning,” according to the court – because Defendants’ continued operation of their salon is in an alleged breach of the franchise agreement. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs failed to show that they will be irreparably harmed unless Defendants are enjoined from operating the salon. The court declined to presume such harm based solely on the breach of the agreement. Instead, it found that Plaintiffs failed to show that the injunction was necessary to prevent use of Plaintiffs’ confidential information, unfair appropriation of other proprietary or unique aspects of Plaintiffs’ business or consumer confusion or to preserve any relationships Plaintiffs would have with customers. Accordingly, the court denied Plaintiffs’ injunction request.

Class Action Certification in Toxic Pollution Cases: It’s Not Whether You Will Win or Lose, but How You Will Play the Game – Price v. Martin

October 8, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A recent ruling out of Louisiana makes clear that in determining whether a group of plaintiffs in a toxic contamination case should be permitted to bring their claims as a class action, the question is not whether the plaintiffs can ultimately win the case, but whether they’ve simply met the basic requirements for class certification.

Price v. Martin, Louisiana’s Third Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s certification of the plaintiff class in an action alleging that the defendants – local railroad tie manufacturers – contaminated the property surrounding their operation, finding that the plaintiffs met the certification requirements regardless of the likelihood of their success on the merits of their claims.

The plaintiffs are persons residing in Alexandria, Louisiana, near the Dura-Wood Treating Company facility, owned by defendants at various times over a 66-year period. They claim that Dura-Wood’s creosote-treated railroad tie operation contaminated soil, sediments, groundwater and buildings in the surrounding area, damaging the plaintiffs’ property. Following a flurry of motions, the trial court granted certification of the plaintiffs’ class action, allowing representative parties to sue on behalf of roughly 4,700 landowners in the allegedly contaminated area. The appeals court upheld the decision, finding that “[t]he trial court applied the correct legal standard in deciding to certify this class.”
The court quoted the state Supreme Court’s decision in Dukes v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. in describing the nature of class action lawsuits in Louisiana:

A class action is a nontraditional litigation procedure which permits a representative with typical claims to sue or defend on behalf of, and stand in judgment for, a class of similarly situated persons when the question is one of common interest to persons so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the court. Ford v. Murphy Oil U.S.A., Inc., 96-2913 (La. 9/9/97), 703 So.2d 542, 544. The purpose and intent of class action procedure is to adjudicate and obtain res judicata effect on all common issues applicable not only to persons who bring the action, but to all others who are “similarly situated.” Id.

The court further determined that the plaintiffs satisfied Louisiana’s numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy and class definition requirements for certification. Although the facility at issue had three owners who engaged in varying operations using different chemicals over the 66-year period during which the contamination allegedly took place, the court held that “one factual issue is common to the potential class—whether defendants’ off-site emissions caused property damage to the residences in the area surrounding the plant. This issue will not be resolved by examining individual residences in the area. Rather, the elevated toxin levels must be shown on an area-wide basis as emanating from the defendants’ facility.”

Class Certification Order Affirmed By Appellate Court

October 7, 2011 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

We recently had a win in the Illinois Appellate Court in S37 v. Advanced Refrigeration. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to certifiy a class action regarding the claims in that. Advanced sells appliances to various businesses and added a charge on its invoices called government processing requirment. This fee was not required to be paid by the government and was not a government mandated fee. Advanced created the fee to recover costs it allegedly incurrs in complying with government requirements. The Class-Action Complaint alleged that the fee was deceptive in that it allegedly made a profit generating fee appear as if it were a government required fee. Advanced denied these allegations and opposed class-certification. The trial court denied Advanced’s motion to dismiss and then certified the case as a class-action.

The Appellate Court granted leave for an appeal of the class-certification decision. Advanced argued that it disclosed the true nature of the fee to all customers and that such alleged disclosure gave rise to individual issues blocking class certification. The Class argued that this defense did not create invididual issues barring class-certification as the defense of full disclosure was common the entire class given Advanced’s claim that it told all customers that the fee wasn’t a government mandated fee or tax as the fee’s name allegedly suggested it was.

The Appellate Court rejected Advanced’s arguments and found that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in certifying the class-action.

The Appellate Court held:

We agree with the plaintiff that this case fits the pattern of cases routinely certified as
class actions by Illinois courts. See Martin v. Heinold Commodities, Inc., 163 Ill. 2d 33, 643
N.E.2d 734 (1994) (resolved as a class action, the court held the commodity option contracts
broker’s disclosure statement was misleading, in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,
because the “foreign service fee” to be charged investors was a commission from which it would receive compensation); Harrison Sheet Steel Co. v. Lyons, 15 Ill. 2d 532, 155 N.E.2d 595 (1959)(class action was proper where the defendant refused to refund illegal occupation taxes collected from its customers); P.J.’s Concrete Pumping Service, Inc. v. Nextel West Corp., 345 Ill. App. 3d 992, 1003, 803 N.E.2d 1020 (2004) (“The primary factual issue in this case is a uniform billing practice that allegedly violated the Consumer Fraud Act in the same manner as to all class members. The propriety of such a uniform practice is amendable to being resolved in a class action.”).

The Appelalte Court also noted that the brief of the National Association of Consumer Advocates (which filed a friend of the court submission) stated that class-actions provided a way for small claims like this to proceed to court and to obtain justice when small alleged wrongs in the aggregate allegedly harm many consumers:

“ ‘The policy at the very core of the class action mechanism
is to overcome the problem that small recoveries do not provide the
incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or
her rights. A class action solves this problem by aggregating the
relatively paltry potential recoveries into something worth
someone’s (usually an attorney’s) labor.’ ” Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521
U.S. 591, 617 (1997), quoting Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 338, 344 (7th Cir. 1997).

You can view the full opinion of the Appellate Court by clicking here.