2011 IL 110350
Ill.2011Background
- Italia Foods, Inc. sued Sun Tours, Inc. for TCPA violations and common-law conversion regarding unsolicited faxes.
- Circuit Court denied 2-619.1 motion and certified three Rule 308 questions for interlocutory review.
- Appellate Court answered Question I negatively, held TCPA claim actionable in Illinois without enabling legislation, and discussed assignability and limitations.
- Italia amended to substitute Italia for Hinman; stated 28 faxes to Italia from 2005–2007.
- Defendants argued TCPA claims aren’t cognizable in Illinois and are nonassignable; argued limitations issues.
- This Court adopts the “acknowledgment” approach, holds no enabling legislation required, vacates assignability discussion, and remands for limitations analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TCPA requires enabling legislation. | Italia: no enabling legislation needed. | Sun Tours: statute requires state action. | No enabling legislation required; TCPA forms part of Illinois law enforceable in state courts. |
| Whether TCPA claims are assignable under Illinois law. | Italia: assignment may legitimate claim rights. | Sun Tours: assignability is improper under Illinois law. | Appellate assignability discussion vacated; remand for resolution. |
| What is the applicable statute of limitations for the TCPA claim? | Italia: federal 4-year period should apply. | Sun Tours: Illinois 2-year penalties or other limits apply. | Remand to appellate court to decide the correct limitations period. |
Key Cases Cited
- First Capital Mortgage Corp. v. Union Federal Bank of Indianapolis, 374 Ill. App. 3d 739 (2007) (acknowledgment approach; private TCPA claims cognizable in Illinois courts without enabling legislation)
- Consumer Crusade, Inc. v. Affordable Health Care Solutions, Inc., 121 P.3d 350 (Colo. App. 2005) (interpretation of 'if otherwise permitted' under supremacy clause)
- Ponte v. Investors’ Alert, Inc., 857 A.2d 1 (Md. 2004) (acknowledgment/principles of supremacy clause; state enforcement)
- Schulman v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 710 N.Y.S.2d 368 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000) (legislative history supporting state enforcement)
- Mulhern v. MacLeod, 808 N.E.2d 778 (Mass. 2004) (supremacy clause governs when federal action is enforceable in state court)
- Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) (state courts must enforce federal law under Supremacy Clause)