S37 Management v. Advance Refrigeration Co.
961 N.E.2d 6
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- S37 Management, Inc. sues Advance Refrigeration for breach of contract and Consumer Fraud Act violations over a
- Gov't Processing Req.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commonality predominates over individual issues for certification | Liataud shows uniform GPR misrepresentation | Individual negotiations vary | Yes; common issues predominate |
| Uniform billing practice sufficient for class liability | GPR charged to all customers identically | Different contracts and communications | Yes; uniform charge supports predominance |
| Damages and reliance issues as individualized defenses | Uniform misrepresentation suffices for class relief | Damages/mitigation/voluntary payment require individual proof | Not fatal to certification; predominance found |
| Adequacy of representation and manageability of class | Class representatives adequately protect interests | Manageability concerns due to individual defenses | Committed to certification; court found appropriate method |
Key Cases Cited
- Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 216 Ill.2d 100 (Ill. 2005) (four prerequisites for class certification; appellate review restraint)
- Smith v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 223 Ill.2d 441 (Ill. 2006) (abiding standard for predominance and commonality)
- Kitzes v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 374 Ill.App.3d 1053 (Ill. App. 2007) (individualized inquiries preclude certification in some contexts)
- Key v. Jewel Cos., 176 Ill.App.3d 91 (Ill. App. 1988) (oral statements can create individualized proof impacting common issues)
- P.J.'s Concrete Pumping Service, Inc. v. Nextel West Corp., 345 Ill.App.3d 992 (Ill. App. 2004) (uniform billing practice supports class treatment)