532 F.Supp.3d 557
N.D. Ill.2021Background
- Plaintiff James Van Zeeland, a Wisconsin truck driver, bought a Rand McNally TND Tablet 80 GPS on or about May 14, 2019 and alleges it routinely gave wrong locations/directions, froze, and slowed.
- Van Zeeland contacted Rand’s support repeatedly in July–October 2019; Rand provided prerecorded messages, offered a new mount (“slice”) and advised resets, which failed; Rand refused his refund requests.
- Van Zeeland sued individually and as putative class representative asserting: MMWA, breach of express and implied warranties, Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA), Illinois UDTPA, multi‑state consumer protection claims, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment.
- Rand moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court accepted the factual allegations as true for pleading purposes and analyzed jurisdictional and pleading issues.
- The court granted the motion in part and denied in part: it sustained some statutory and common‑law claims (with leave to amend certain dismissed counts) and allowed warranty and MMWA counts to proceed at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject‑matter jurisdiction over MMWA claim | MMWA claim is asserted; CAFA provides jurisdiction | MMWA requires 100 named plaintiffs for class claims | Court: CAFA can provide jurisdiction; MMWA claim may proceed (denied dismissal) |
| Breach of express warranty (UCC) | Tablet breached express warranty; Rand failed to repair/replace or refund | Rand: plaintiff didn’t allow reasonable repair attempts and warranty doesn’t permit refund | Court: plausible breach pleaded; reasonableness of repair attempts is a factual issue (denied dismissal) |
| Breach of implied warranty of merchantability | Tablet unfit for ordinary use | Rand: warranty disclaims implied warranties conspicuously | Court: disclaimer is conspicuous and valid; plaintiff failed to plead unconscionability (granted dismissal) |
| MMWA claim | Written warranty breached; remedies under MMWA available because warranty failed essential purpose | Rand: MMWA claim depends on state warranty claims and fails if those fail | Court: because express warranty claim survives pleading, MMWA claim plausible (denied dismissal) |
| ICFA applicability (non‑Illinois plaintiff) | ICFA applies because factors show transaction centered in Illinois | Rand: Avery limits ICFA to transactions occurring primarily and substantially in Illinois; plaintiff is Wisconsin resident and insufficient Illinois contacts | Court: plaintiff failed to plead facts showing transaction primarily occurred in Illinois; ICFA claim dismissed without prejudice (granted dismissal) |
| UDTPA relief | Rand engaged in deceptive trade practices; seeks injunctive relief | Rand: plaintiff only seeks monetary damages under UDTPA | Court: plaintiff sought injunctive relief in complaint; UDTPA claim survives (denied dismissal) |
| Multi‑state consumer protection class | Plaintiff may assert other states’ consumer statutes on behalf of multi‑state class | Rand: plaintiff lacks standing to represent other states and ICFA failure dooms multi‑state claims | Court: dismissal of ICFA undermines multi‑state class claims at pleading stage; multi‑state count dismissed without prejudice (granted dismissal) |
| Fraudulent concealment | Rand concealed defects; had duty to disclose | Rand: no fiduciary or special‑trust relationship; allegations lack particularity | Court: plaintiff failed to allege special trust/duty or particularized fraud; claim dismissed (granted dismissal) |
| Unjust enrichment | Rand unjustly retained purchase price; restitution warranted | Rand: express contract/warranty governs relationship so unjust enrichment is barred | Court: unjust enrichment barred where express contract governs subject matter; claim dismissed (granted dismissal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 8 pleading)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state plausible claim)
- Schimmer v. Jaguar Cars, Inc., 384 F.3d 402 (7th Cir. 2004) (MMWA allows federal enforcement of written and implied warranties)
- Morrison v. YTB Int’l, Inc., 649 F.3d 533 (7th Cir. 2011) (application of ICFA depends on where transaction occurred)
- Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. 2005) (ICFA applies only where transaction occurred primarily and substantially in Illinois)
- Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012) (fraudulent concealment requires duty to disclose; special trust relationship is rare)
- HPI Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hosp., Inc., 545 N.E.2d 672 (Ill. 1989) (elements of unjust enrichment under Illinois law)
- Duffy v. Ticketreserve, Inc., 722 F. Supp. 2d 977 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (unjust enrichment unavailable when express contract governs the parties’ relationship)