Patrick Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14871
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Camasta sued JAB under ICFA alleging deceptive sales practices.
- Advertising claimed “sale prices” and a “buy one shirt, get two free” promotion at a JAB Illinois store.
- District court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with prejudice for failure to state claim.
- Camasta alleged a pattern and practice of permanently discounted pricing misrepresented as temporary sales.
- district court identified multiple Rule 9(b) deficiencies and lack of concrete damages or future harm.
- Appeal followed challenging Rule 9(b) sufficiency, actual damages, and injunctive relief claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 9(b) applies and is satisfied. | Camasta argues Rule 8(a) suffices; allegedly unfair conduct under ICFA. | JAB contends 9(b) applies and allegations lack specificity. | Rule 9(b) applies; allegations insufficient |
| Whether Camasta pled actual damages. | Camasta paid more than shirts’ worth due to deceptive pricing. | No evidence of overpayment or quantifiable loss; shop-around possibility uncertain. | Actual damages not pled with sufficient specificity |
| Whether Camasta is entitled to injunctive relief under ICFA/UDTPA. | Past deception supports future relief. | No ongoing or likely future harm shown; ICFA/UDTPA not satisfied. | Injunctive relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (plausibility standard for complaint sufficiency)
- Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (heightened pleadings; not mere speculation)
- Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Med Benefits Trust v. Walgreen Co., 631 F.3d 436 (7th Cir. 2011) (fraud-on-its-face requires 9(b) heightened pleading)
- Ackerman v. Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co., 172 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 1999) (Rule 9(b) requires detailed charge of fraud)
- UniQuality, Inc. v. Infotronx, Inc., 974 F.2d 918 (7th Cir. 1992) (who/what/when/where/how of misrepresentation needed)
- Kim v. Carter's Inc., 598 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2010) (actual damages required in private ICFA actions)
- O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (Sup. Ct. 1974) (no imminent risk; prior harm alone not enough for injunctive relief)
- Kensington’s Wine Auctioneers & Brokers, Inc. v. John Hart Fine Wine, Ltd., 909 N.E.2d 848 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (injunctive relief requires likely future harm)