Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Seventh Circuit consolidated class action appeals filed under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), 15 U.S.C. 1681c(g), which provides that “no person that accepts credit cards or debit cards ... shall print [electronically] more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale.” Willful violation entitles a consumer who sustains no harm to statutory damages, but a consumer harmed by the violation can obtain actual damages by showing that the violation was the result of negligence. Consumers who bought products at RadioShack stores paid with credit or debit cards, and received electronically printed receipts that contained the card’s expiration date. The parties settled; each class member who responded positively was to receive a $10 coupon that could be used at any RadioShack store. The face value of all the coupons was $830,000. RadioShack was to pay class counsel $1 million. The Seventh Circuit reevaluated the value of the settlement to class members and the benefits of costs incurred and, noting Radio Shack’s fragile financial condition, stated ”A renegotiated settlement will simply shift some fraction of the exorbitant attorneys’ fee awarded class counsel in the existing settlement that we are disapproving to the class members. While Radio Shack’s violation was willful, given earlier litigation, Shoe Carnival had no previous violation to alert the company. Instead of omitting the entire expiration date from credit‐card receipts, Shoe Carnival omitted just the year The Seventh Circuit concluded that there was sufficient ambiguity in the statute to justify the district court’s determination that Shoe Carnival had not willfully violated FACTA. View "Aliano v. RadioShack Corp." on Justia Law

Before the patents expired (2012) for the individual coffee pods used in Keurig coffeemakers, defendants wanted to enter the market for Keurig‐compatible pods. In 2010 they introduced a product that used the external K‐Cup design, but did not contain a filter so that use of fresh coffee grounds was impossible. They used small chunks of freeze‐dried brewed coffee that dissolve and are reconstituted when hot water is added. The packaging stated in small font that it contained “naturally roasted soluble and microground Arabica coffee”; it never explained that soluble coffee is instant coffee or that the pods contained 95% instant coffee. The package included a warning: “DO NOT REMOVE the foil seal as the cup will not work properly in the coffee maker and could result in hot water burns.” Except to ensure that the user did not view the contents of the pod, this made no sense. Customers began to complain and were told that the pods were “not instant coffee” but “a high quality coffee bean pulverized into a powder so fine that [it] will dissolve,” which was largely false. Consumer protection lawsuits were consolidated. The district court refused to certify a class and granted summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Plaintiffs’ claims and those of the class they propose all derive from a single course of conduct. The court overlooked genuine issues of fact when it granted summary judgment.View "Suchanek v. Sturm Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

The Plaintiffs sued Payday Financial, Webb, an enrolled member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and other entities associated with Webb, alleging violations of civil and criminal statutes related to loans that they had received from the defendants. The businesses maintain several websites that offer small, high-interest loans to customers. The entire transaction is completed online; a potential customer applies for, and agrees to, the loan terms from his computer. The district court dismissed for improper venue, finding that the loan agreements required that all disputes be resolved through arbitration conducted by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe on their Reservation in South Dakota. Following a limited remand, the district court concluded that, although the tribal law could be ascertained, the arbitral mechanism detailed in the agreement did not exist. The Seventh Circuit held that the action should not have been dismissed because the arbitral mechanism specified in the agreement is illusory. Rejecting an alternative argument that the loan documents require that any litigation be conducted by a tribal court on the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Reservation, the court stated that tribal courts have a unique, limited jurisdiction that does not extend generally to the regulation of nontribal members whose actions do not implicate the sovereignty of the tribe or the regulation of tribal lands. View "Jackson v. Payday Fin., LLC" on Justia Law

JAB designs, manufactures, and sells men’s clothing and accessories and has 31 Illinois retail locations. In July 2012, Camasta went to the Deer Park JAB store. Before making his purchases, Camasta contends that he saw an advertisement about “sale prices.” At the time of Camasta’s visit, JAB customers were offered a promotion: “buy one shirt, get two shirts free.” Camasta paid $79.50 for one shirt getting two similar shirts for free, and bought another shirt for $87.50 allowing him to receive two more shirts for free. After this purchase, Camasta claims that he learned the JAB “sale” was not actually a reduced price, but was the JAB practice to advertise normal prices as temporary price reductions. Camasta asserts that but for his belief that the advertised sale was a limited time offer, he would not have purchased the six shirts. On behalf of himself and a putative class, Camasta filed a complaint, accusing JAB of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act based on the company’s “sales practice of advertising the normal retail price as a temporary price reduction.” The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting Camasta's "sparse" and "conclusory" allegations. View "Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc." on Justia Law

Bormes, an attorney, tendered the filing fee for a lawsuit via pay.gov, which the federal courts use to facilitate electronic payments. The web site sent him an email receipt that included the last four digits of his credit card’s number, plus the card’s expiration date. Bormes, claiming that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681c(g)(1) allows a receipt to contain one or the other, but not both, filed suit against the United States seeking damages. In an earlier appeal the Supreme Court held that the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2), does not waive sovereign immunity on a suit seeking to collect damages for an asserted violation of FCRA and remanded for determination of “whether FCRA itself waives the Federal Government’s immunity to damages under 1681n.” The Seventh Circuit held that although the United States has waived immunity against damages actions of this kind, it did not violate the statute on the merits. The statute as written applies to receipts “printed … at the point of the sale or transaction.” The email receipt that Bormes received met neither requirement. View "Bormes v. United States" on Justia Law

Burzlaff bought a “Stallion” motorized tricycle from Thoroughbred Motorsports in 2009 for $35,000. When Burzlaff reported the first problems to Thoroughbred, the company instructed him to take his vehicle to a Ford dealer for warranty repairs. Burzlaff did so repeatedly. After the vehicle had been out of service for repairs for 71 days during the first year, Burzlaff demanded, under the Wisconsin Lemon Law, that Thoroughbred replace the vehicle or refund his purchase price. Thoroughbred refused. Further efforts to repair the vehicle at the Thoroughbred factory in Texas failed to correct the defects. Burzlaff sued Thoroughbred under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301, and the Wisconsin Lemon Law, Wis. Stat. 218.0171. The district court awarded double damages plus costs and attorney fees for a total judgment of $95,000 under the more generous provisions of the state law. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the jury instructions on the Lemon Law claim, the sufficiency of the evidence on that claim, and the submission of the Magnuson-Moss claim to the jury. View "Burzlaff v. Thoroughbred Motorsports Inc." on Justia Law

Med‐1 buys delinquent debts and purchased Suesz’s debt from Community Hospital. In 2012 it filed a collection suit in small claims court and received a judgment against Suesz for $1,280. Suesz lives one county over from Marion. Though he incurred the debt in Marion County, he did so in Lawrence Township, where Community is located, and not in Pike Township, the location of the small claims court. Suesz says that it is Med‐1’s practice to file claims in Pike Township regardless of the origins of the dispute and filed a purported class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act venue provision requiring debt collectors to bring suit in the “judicial district” where the contract was signed or where the consumer resides, 15 U.S.C. 1692i(a)(2). The district court dismissed after finding Marion County Small Claims Courts were not judicial districts for the purposes of the FDCPA. The Seventh Circuit initially affirmed, but, on rehearing en banc, reversed, holding that the correct interpretation of “judicial district or similar legal entity” in section 1692i is the smallest geographic area that is relevant for determining venue in the court system in which the case is filed. View "Suesz v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC" on Justia Law

Indiana pawnbrokers must obtain license from the state’s Department of Financial Institutions (DFI). Saalwaechter, owns Fares Pawn in Evansville, Indiana. He applied for a license in 2009, but DFI denied his application, citing concerns about previous operations on the property and about his store manager’s criminal history. The property has been used as a pawnshop for about 20 years, but different businesses with overlapping ownership. Saalwaechter received a license after he signed an agreement to comply with certain conditions, in particular not employing the manager. Saalwaechter sued DFI, alleging violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Saalwaechter did not contend that DFI treated him unfavorably on account of some identifiable characteristic, such as age, sex, or race, but that the state had singled him out for disparate treatment without a rational basis. The district court granted DFI summary judgment on the “class of one” claim, finding that no reasonable jury could conclude that DFI treated Saalwaechter differently from similarly situated applicants without a rational reason. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Fares Pawn, LLC v. IN Dep't of Fin. Insts." on Justia Law

Trump Tower Chicago is a 92-story building with 486 residential condominium units, 339 hotel condominium units, retail space, a health club, ballrooms, meeting rooms, restaurants, a hair salon, and other facilities. When the owner of a hotel condominium unit is not occupying the unit, building management can rent it to a visitor; rental income is divided with the owner’s share credited against his annual maintenance fee. Plaintiff, an 80-year-old CPA and financial planner, agreed to buy two hotel condominium units in 2006 for $2.2 million. She bought them as an investment and already owned other investment condominium units, including a residential unit in Trump Tower Chicago. The agreement gave TrumpOrg “the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to modify the Condominium Documents.” Plaintiff asked TrumpOrg to give her the right to terminate the agreement and get her deposit back if she disapproved of any such changes. TrumpOrg refused. Plaintiff signed the agreement, even though TrumpOrg had already made three changes. The next year, TrumpOrg made changes that greatly curtailed owners’ rights in the hotel facilities. Plaintiff refused to close. TrumpOrg did not seek to compel her to close, but did not return her down payment, $516,000 and canceled the purchase agreement. Plaintiff sought damages under the common law of contracts, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Condominium Property Act, and Illinois Securities Law. The district court ruled in favor of the defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Goldberg v. 401 N. Wabash Venture, L.L.C., " on Justia Law

A 2006 class action against Pella, a window manufacturer, alleged that certain windows had a design defect that allowed water to enter behind exterior aluminum cladding and damage the wooden frame and the house itself. The district judge certified a class for customers who had already replaced or repaired their windows, seeking damages and limited to six states, and another for those who had not, seeking only declaratory relief nationwide. Initially, there was one named plaintiff, Saltzman. His son-in-law, Weiss, was lead class counsel. Weiss is under investigation for multiple improprieties. The Seventh Circuit upheld the certifications. Class counsel negotiated a settlement in 2011 that directed Pella to pay $11 million in attorneys’ fees based on an assertion that the settlement was worth $90 million to the class. In 2013, before the deadline for filing claims, the district judge approved the settlement, which purports to bind a single nation-wide class of all owners of defective windows, whether or not they have replaced or repaired the windows. The agreement gave lead class counsel “sole discretion” to allocate attorneys’ fees; Weiss proposed to allocate 73 percent to his own firm. Weiss removed four original class representatives who opposed the settlement; their replacements joined Saltzman in supporting it. Named plaintiffs were each compensated $5,000 or $10,000 for their services, if they supported the settlement. Saltzman, as lead class representative, was to receive $10,000. The Seventh Circuit reversed, reversed, referring to “eight largely wasted years,” the need to remove Saltzman, Weiss, and Weiss’s firm as class representative and as class counsel, and to reinstate the four named plaintiffs. View "Riva v. Pella Corp." on Justia Law