Phillips v. DePaul University
19 N.E.3d 1019
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiffs are nine DePaul College of Law graduates (classes 2007–2011) who allege they relied on DePaul’s published employment and salary statistics when enrolling and incurred large tuition debt but later obtained lower-paying or nonlegal jobs.
- Plaintiffs sued DePaul (class action) alleging violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, common-law fraud, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation based on employment reports for the 2005, 2007, and 2009 classes.
- Plaintiffs alleged DePaul’s reports overstated employment rates and salaries by including part-time, temporary, and nonlegal jobs in employment counts while reporting salaries for full-time positions only, and that plaintiffs relied on these reports when choosing DePaul.
- DePaul moved to dismiss under Ill. C.C.P. § 2-615 and § 2-619, arguing (inter alia) the reports were not deceptive (ABA materials qualified the data), plaintiffs failed to plead reliance, causation, or ascertainable damages, and the Consumer Fraud Act safe-harbor applied.
- The circuit court granted dismissal with prejudice as to all counts; the appellate court affirmed, holding plaintiffs failed to plead a deceptive act, proximate cause, reasonable reliance, or ascertainable damages, and the dismissal with prejudice was proper because plaintiffs never sought leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DePaul’s employment/salary publications were deceptive under the Consumer Fraud Act | DePaul’s reports were misleading because they counted all employment (including part‑time/nonlegal) but reported salaries for full‑time jobs, inflating perceived job prospects | The disclosures and ABA materials made clear the reports included legal and nonlegal, full‑ and part‑time jobs and warned high‑paying jobs were exceptions, so no deceptive act | Dismissed — plaintiffs failed to plead a deceptive act with particularity; disclosures and ABA guides undercut their interpretation |
| Whether plaintiffs reasonably relied and whether reliance was the proximate cause of their injuries | Plaintiffs relied on the reports to enroll, incur tuition debt, and thus suffered damages when jobs/salaries fell short | Reliance was unreasonable and not the but‑for cause; many intervening factors determine employment and lifetime earnings | Dismissed — plaintiffs failed to allege reasonable reliance, cause‑in‑fact, or legal causation |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded ascertainable, non‑speculative damages (tuition loss and lost lifetime earnings) | Plaintiffs sought a percentage of tuition (based on an alleged inflation X%) and lost lifetime earnings calculated statistically | Damages are speculative: averages are historical class data, not promises to individuals; plaintiffs mostly did not plead actual salaries; multiple factors affect lifetime earnings | Dismissed — damages speculative and not adequately pleaded |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate (leave to amend) | Plaintiffs asked for remand to amend | DePaul noted plaintiffs never sought leave to amend in trial court | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; plaintiffs did not request leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- K. Miller Construction Co. v. McGinnis, 238 Ill. 2d 284 (Ill. 2010) (standards for reviewing § 2‑615 motions)
- Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 2012 IL 113148 (Ill. 2012) (courts need not accept conclusory allegations)
- Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., 219 Ill. 2d 182 (Ill. 2005) (but‑for causation in fraud context)
- Floyd v. Rockford Park District, 355 Ill. App. 3d 695 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (conclusory statements insufficient to plead a cause of action)
- White v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 368 Ill. App. 3d 278 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (elements required to state a Consumer Fraud Act claim)