Wellington Homes, Inc. v. West Dundee China Palace Restaurant, Inc.
984 N.E.2d 554
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Wellington filed a class action in Lake County (Mar. 31, 2009) alleging TCPA violations from May 2006 unsolicited fax to China Palace.
- Counts included TCPA liability (statutory damages), conversion, and Illinois consumer fraud claims against West Dundee China Palace Restaurant, Inc., and officers Azmi.
- Court certified a class in Jan. 2011 for those who received May 2006 faxes; defendants later defaulted appearance and moved to vacate after insurer defense issue resolved.
- Defendants moved to dismiss TCPA claim as time-barred under Illinois’ two-year statutory-penalty limitation; plaintiff urged four-year federal catchall (28 U.S.C. § 1658(a)).
- Trial court denied dismissal; the 308 interlocutory appeal asked which statute of limitations applies to private TCPA claims in Illinois state court.
- Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308 certification framed two questions: whether Illinois’ two-year limit applies, and, if not, what period applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Illinois’ two-year limit apply to TCPA private claims in state court? | Wellington: four-year federal catchall applies. | West Dundee: Illinois two-year penalty limit applies as neutral state rule. | No; two-year limit does not apply. |
| What limitations period applies to private TCPA claims in Illinois state court? | Four-year federal catchall (28 U.S.C. § 1658(a)) applies. | Four-year catchall does not apply; state borrowing or opt-in/out concepts govern. | Four-year federal catchall (§ 1658(a)) applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Italia Foods, Inc. v. Sun Tours, Inc., 2011 IL 110350 (Illinois 2011) (adopted 'acknowledgment' approach to TCPA scope and supremacy clause)
- Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (U.S. 2004) (broad interpretation of federal catchall §1658(a))
- Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 565 U.S. _ (U.S. 2012) (TCPA is federal law; concurrent jurisdiction; catchall applies absent unambiguous contrary language)
- Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1946) (Congressional limitation periods are definitive when provided)
- Engel v. Davenport, 271 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1926) (federal limitations periods apply to federal causes in state courts)
- Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325 (Illinois 2002) (statutes of limitations are context-dependent for procedural vs substantive analysis under supremacy clause)