Wendorf v. Landers
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134984
| N.D. Ill. | 2010Background
- Putative class action alleging unauthorized $60 one-time EFT charge under an Oak Park gym membership agreement (Jan 15, 2007).
- EFT authorization allowed preauthorized transfers for monthly dues; December 2009 notice stated a $60 one-time charge would be added, not a dues increase.
- January 2010 transfer debited $60 plus regular dues; plaintiffs objected to the charge.
- Plaintiffs plead EFTA, PFSA, and ICFA claims, plus common-law breach of contract and conversion.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); court denied the motion, addressing multiple state-law claims and jurisdiction over EFTA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the $60 charge violated the EFTA §1693e(a) preauthorization requirement | Wendorfs: charge not covered by preauthorization as it was not monthly dues or prior-services fee | Charge fell within implied authorized scope of dues increases | EFTA claim survives; charge outside original preauthorization states a plausible violation |
| PFSA compliance in contract for physical fitness services | Charge with no PFSA-compliant contract increases obligation without proper terms | Doctrine allows broad right to increase dues; PFSA may not require explicit pricing in every amendment | PFSA claim survives; contract deemed insufficient to reflect total payment obligation under PFSA |
| ICFA section 2Z and section 2 unfairness/dupes under PFSA/ICFA | PFSA violation knowingly committed; unfair practice due to lack of meaningful choice | No showing of knowing PFSA violation; argument insufficient | Section 2 claim viable; section 2Z claim rejected for lack of showing knowledge/intent to violate PFSA |
| Common law breach of contract and conversion related to the $60 charge | Imposition of charge breaches the contract terms | Contract permits increases; funds transfer permissible | Counts IV and V not dismissed; conversion discussion noted; case to proceed with contract-based remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe-2 v. McLean County Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Directors, 593 F.3d 507 (7th Cir. 2010) (jurisdiction after dismissal of federal claim; supplemental jurisdiction)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard: plausibility; specify facts, not legal theories)
- Windy City Metal Fabricators & Supply, Inc. v. CIT Tech. Fin. Servs., 536 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2008) (Rule 9(b) not required for ICFA unfairness claims)
- Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 201 Ill.2d 403, 266 Ill.Dec. 879, 775 N.E.2d 951 (Ill. 2002) (ICFA unfairness may be shown without reliance; Sperry factors guidance)
- Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 405 U.S. 233 (U.S. 1972) (unfairness factors for FTC-based analysis)
- Rockford Memorial Hospital v. Havrilesko, 368 Ill.App.3d 115, 306 Ill.Dec. 611, 858 N.E.2d 56 (Ill. App. 2006) (ICFA unfairness analysis; oppression/public policy)
- Lombardi, Inc. v. Smithfield, 11 A.3d 1180 (Del. 1989) (example placeholder (not used in text))