914 F. Supp. 2d 925
S.D. Ind.2012Background
- Plaintiff Lewis alleges DBA and CCWA private rights of action against Gaylor, Inc.
- Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing DBA and CCWA claims, citing no implied rights.
- Court adopted Magistrate Judge on DBA claim; CCWA claim to be stayed and certified to Indiana Supreme Court.
- Court discusses McDaniel v. University of Chicago and Cannon v. University of Chicago as controlling framework.
- Court notes Coutu and subsequent decisions undermine McDaniel’s implied-rights analysis for DBA and CCWA.
- Procedural posture includes prior dismissal of some counts; remaining DBA and CCWA claims are addressed in this order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DBA creates an implied private right of action | Lewis argues there is an implied right under DBA. | Gaylor contends no implied private remedy exists. | DBA claim dismissed; no implied right. |
| Whether CCWA creates an implied private right of action | Lewis argues CCWA permits private enforcement. | Gaylor contends no implied private remedy exists under CCWA. | CCWA claim dismissed; but court stayed ruling and certified question to Indiana Supreme Court. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDaniel v. University of Chicago, 548 F.2d 689 (7th Cir. 1977) (found implied private right under DBA to effectuate Congress's intent)
- Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (Supreme Court 1979) (clarified first Cort v. Ash factor by statute language)
- Universities Research Ass’n v. Coutu, 450 U.S. 754 (Supreme Court 1981) (statutory language and private remedy intent analyzed; cautioned on private rights)
- Stampco Constr. Co., Inc. v. Guffey, 572 N.E.2d 510 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (divided Indiana Court of Appeals recognized implied CCWA right relying on McDaniel)
- Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am. v. Gonzales, 86 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 1996) (Indiana Supreme Court guidance used to predict disclosure of state-law issues)