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

Plaintiff entered into a two-year wireless service agreement with First Cellular in 2005. The company was acquired by defendant, which began dismantling and reorganizing. Plaintiff initially agreed to defendant's terms, but later filed a class action, claiming breach of contract for rendering his phone and equipment useless and refusing to honor the features and prices of the First Cellular Agreement. He also claimed deceptive rade practices under Illinois law and civil conspiracy. The district court denied defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that defendant's arbitration clause applies because part of the claims are based on services and products received under defendant's contract. Defendant's contract unambiguously covers any dispute "arising out of" or "relating to the services and equipment." If a contract provides for arbitration of some issues, any doubt concerning the scope of the arbitration clause is resolved in favor of arbitration as a matter of federal law, 9 U.S.C. 2.

Class actions charged defendant, a credit-reporting agency, with violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681, by selling consumer credit information to advertisers. The actions were consolidated and settled for $75 million. Class counsel appealed approval of a settlement with members of the class who filed individual claims in state court, that allowed defendant, after paying the settlements, to be reimbursed out of the $75 million class settlement fund. The law firm (Watts) that represented the individual claimants, did nothing to create the fund out of which the settlements will be paid, but stands to receive from $10 to $15 million in attorneys’ fees out of the class settlement fund. Class counsel argued that it should receive a portion of Watts' fees on the ground that class counsel contributed to the creation of the fund. The Seventh Circuit deemed Watts' motion as one to add it as a party and granted the motion. Watts wants to be an appellee to defend its right to attorneys' fees from the fund that its clients (individual claimants) agreed to pay, according to the court, but doesn't want to be a party that could be ordered to disgorge some of the fees, should class counsel prevail.

In 2008 the city levied fines against plaintiff, arising from a parcel of real estate that he no longer owned. When he did not pay those fines, the city retained defendant to collect. The district court dismissed his suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692-1692p, finding that fines are not "debts" covered by the FDCPA. For purposes of the statute, a "debt" can arise only from a "transaction in which money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes." The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that fines cannot reasonably be understood as debts arising from consensual consumer transactions for goods and services.

A provision of the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601, requires that consumers receive clear and conspicuous notice of the right to rescind within three days. Regulation Z requires that the consumer be given two copies of the notice at closing; failure to comply extends the time to rescind to three years, 13 C.F.R. 226.23(a)(3). When plaintiff closed the refinancing of his home in 2007 he signed a receipt for the notices, but he claims that he discovered, two years later, that he had only one copy. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the lender and title company. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that plaintiff presented enough evidence to survive summary judgment.

Defendant, an "infomercialist," violated a court-approved settlement with the FTC by misrepresenting the content of his book, The Weight Loss Cure They Don't Want You to Know About. The district court held him in contempt, ordered him to pay $37.6 million to the FTC, and banned him from making infomercials for three years. The Seventh Circuit vacated the sanctions. On remand, the district court reinstated the $37.6 million remedial fine, explaining that it reached that figure by multiplying the price of the book by the 800-number orders, plus the cost of shipping, less returns, and instructing the FTC to distribute the funds to those who bought the book using the 800-number. Any remainder was to be returned to defendant. The district court also imposed a coercive sanction, a $2 million performance bond, effective for at least five years. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court order, the performance bond in particular, does not violate the First Amendment.

Purchasers sued the manufacturer, claiming that their motorhome had numerous defects and that defendant misrepresented the size of its engine. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of defendant. The Seventh Circuit reversed in part. There was evidence that the purchasers gave defendant an opportunity to cure, as required for Indiana law claims for breach of implied and express warranties and federal claims under the Magnuson-Moss Act, 18 U.S.C. 2310(e). Evidence also supported a claim that defendant committed an "uncured" deceptive act under the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act in representing the engine size. Federal regulations prohibited defendant's designation of the vehicle, which was completed during the 2008 production cycle and had the characteristics of a 2008 model year, as a "2009," but there are disputed questions of fact surrounding information defendant disclosed to the purchasers. The district court properly entered summary judgment on claims for fraud and for commission of an "incurable" deceptive act under Indiana law because the evidence does not support that defendant acted with intent to deceive.

Plaintiff claims that fiber identified on the nutrition label (required by 21 U.S.C. 343(q)(1))of "chewy bars" made and sold by defendants is inferior to unprocessed fiber and can be harmful. The district judge held that the suit was precluded by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 343-1(a)(5), which forbids states to impose "any requirement respecting any claim of the type . . . made in the label or labeling of food that is not identical to the requirement of section 343(r)." The Act does not create a private right of action; suit was filed under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505, and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The labeling of the challenged products is compliant with the statute and FDA regulations. The disclaimers that the plaintiff wants added are not identical to the labeling requirements imposed by federal law, and so they are barred. The court further noted that plaintiff failed to state claim under Illinois law.

Plaintiff complained that defendant told credit agencies that she was behind in payments on a loan in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681s–2(a). The district court dismissed the federal claim on the ground that the statute does not create a private cause of action and held that state common law claims are not preempted. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the state claims should have been dismissed with prejudice. Allowing state common law claims would defeat the purpose of the statute.

Plaintiffs, citizens of Illinois, brought a class action on behalf of licensed drivers in several states against West Publishing, asserting claims under the Driver’' Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 2722. They contend that West acquires personal information contained in motor vehicle records of millions of drivers, directly or indirectly, from state DMVs for resale in violation of the Act. The district court dismissed for lack of standing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.While the Act does create a federal private right of action for people who claim that their personal information has been disclosed in violation of the Act, it does not prohibit West Publishing from reselling the plaintiffs' personal information to those with uses permitted by the Act.

The company made and sold a toy that, when swallowed, made children seriously ill. The product was recalled and removed from store shelves. Plaintiffs, purchasers whose children were not harmed and who did not ask for a refund, challenged the adequacy of the recall and alleged violations of the Consumer Products Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051–89, express and implied warranties, and state consumer-protection statutes. The district court denied class certification. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, first holding that plaintiffs' had standing, based on financial harm. There would be serious problems of class action management, apart from differences in state law. Individual notice would be impossible, making it hard for class members to opt out. No one knows who bought the kits or who used them without problems. It would be difficult to determine who would be entitled to a remedy. The per-buyer costs of identifying class members and giving notice would exceed the price of the toys. The principal effect of class certification would be to induce defendants to pay class lawyers enough to make them go away; effectual relief for consumers is unlikely.