Barber v. American Airlines, Inc.
241 Ill. 2d 450
| Ill. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Andrea Barber filed a class action for breach of contract against American Airlines after two suitcases were not refunded following a canceled flight, with a $40 baggage fee allegedly not refunded.
- Airline refunded the ticket price and later refunded the $40 baggage fee to Barber but plaintiff did not move for class certification.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under 2-619 on mootness grounds because relief had been provided, arguing the contract claim was moot.
- Circuit court granted the motion to dismiss for mootness; plaintiff did not pursue class certification.
- Appellate court majority reversed, applying a “pick off” exception to Wheatley to allow the class claims to proceed despite no pending class certification, prompting Supreme Court review.
- The Supreme Court ultimately overruled the “pick off” exception and reaffirmed Wheatley’s mootness standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wheatley bars the class claim as moot if the defendant refunds relief before class certification. | Barber cannot pursue class claims if no motion for certification was pending. | Wheatley mandates dismissal as moot when relief is tendered before class certification. | Yes; Wheatley forecloses the class claim. |
| Whether a so‑called “pick off” exception should allow class claims to proceed despite no pending certification. | Policy supports pursuing absent class members via a cognizable exception. | No valid basis; exception lacks statutory/legal support. | The court rejects the pick-off exception. |
| What is the controlling authority for mootness when relief is tendered before class certification? | N/A | N/A | Wheatley controls; tender before certification moots the action; Gelb overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheatley v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, 99 Ill.2d 481 (Ill. 1984) (mootness when named plaintiffs receive relief before class certification; motion pending matters)
- Gelb v. Air Con Refrigeration & Heating, Inc., 326 Ill. App.3d 809 (Ill. App. 2001) (overruled to not recognize pick-off as controlling)
- Arriola v. Time Insurance Co., 323 Ill.App.3d 138 (Ill. App. 2001) (origin of pick-off discourse in Illinois appellate law)
- Bruemmer v. Compaq Computer Corp., 329 Ill.App.3d 755 (Ill. App 2002) (adopts pick-off language inconsistent with Wheatley)
- Cohen v. Compact Power Systems, LLC, 382 Ill.App.3d 104 (Ill. App. 2008) (cites pick-off lineage; later disfavored)
- Akinyemi v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 391 Ill.App.3d 334 (Ill. App. 2009) (continued use of pick-off reasoning)
- Susman v. Lincoln American Corp., 587 F.2d 866 (7th Cir. 1978) (motion for certification pending affects mootness in class actions)
- Hillenbrand v. Meyer Medical Group, S.C., 308 Ill.App.3d 381 (Ill. App. 1999) (procedure when a pending class certification motion exists)