2008362v1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MARY L. SFASCIOTTI, d/b/a LAW

OFFICES OF MARY L. SFASCIOTTI,

P.C.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMSON REUTERS GLOBAL

MARKETS, INC, d/b/a THOMSON

REUTERS CORPORATION, d/b/a

THOMSON WEST PUBLISHING

CORPORATION d/b/a FINDLAW,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01925

Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Defendant, West Publishing Corporation d/b/a West, a Thomson Reuters

business (incorrectly referred to by Plaintiff as Thomson Reuters Global Markets, Inc.,

d/b/a Thomson Reuters Corporation d/b/a Thomson West Publishing Corporation d/b/a

FindLaw) (“Defendant”), as and for its Answer to the Complaint (“Complaint”) of Mary L.

Sfasciotti (“Plaintiff”), in the above-entitled matter, states and alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION

1. This court's jurisdiction is founded on Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.S.

§2201 (declaratory judgment), federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.S. §1331, and

mandamus under 28 U.S.C.S.§1361 as this cause of action alleges that the Defendants

violated the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1692 et seq., and the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1601 et seq., and Illinois Deceptive Practices Act.

Case: 1:12-cv-01925 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:39
2

2008362v1

Civil liability is predicated on 15 U.S.C. §1692K, which permits recovery for actual

damages, costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees.

ANSWER: In response to paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant admits

that Plaintiff invokes jurisdiction under the Truth in Lending Act, the FDCPA, and the

Illinois Deceptive Trade Act but denies that it violated any of those laws. Further, the

agreements between the parties provide that the state and federal courts sitting in

Minnesota shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any claim arising from the agreements.

2. Plaintiff is an attorney duly authorized to practice law in the States of Illinois and

Wisconsin and is engaged in the private practice of law with offices at 79 West Monroe

Street, Suite 1215, Chicago, Illinois 60603. She has engaged in the practice of law for

37 years.

ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.

3. Defendant Thomson Reuters Global Markets, Inc. is a Delaware corporation,

authorized to do business in the state of Illinois through its agent, Prentice Hall

Corporation, a subsidiary of the Defendant.

ANSWER: In response to paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant admits

that Thomson Reuters Global Markets, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and is authorized

to do business in Illinois. Defendant denies that Thomson Reuters Global Markets is a

subsidiary of the unidentified “Defendant” stated in Plaintiff’s Paragraph 3.

4. On information and belief, defendant Thomson Reuters Corporation is partially

or wholly owned by Thomson Reuters Global Markets, Inc., and does business as

Thomson West Publishing and Findlaw. Its corporate offices are located at 610

Opperman Drive, Eagan, Minnesota, 55123.

Case: 1:12-cv-01925 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:40
3

2008362v1

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 4. Plaintiff

contracted for service with West Publishing Corporation, which is a Minnesota domestic

corporation authorized to conduct business in Illinois. FindLaw is the name of a website

development product offered by West Publishing Corporation d/b/a West, a Thomson

Reuters business. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff has no contractual relationship

with Thomson Reuters Global Markets, Inc. or Thomson Reuters Corporation.

5. Defendants, individually and collectively, market electronic research services to

professionals and businesses for a monthly charge for the use of certain libraries.

Defendant Thomson Westlaw had such an agreement with the Plaintiff whereby Plaintiff

was billed monthly for usage, which she paid by check.

ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 5. Defendant admits that

Plaintiff contracted with West Publishing Corporation for Westlaw service, the terms of

which were provided for in Plaintiff’s Exhibit “A”.

6. Defendant FINDLAW was an independent company until it was acquired by

Thomson Reuters Corporation in 2001. FINDLAW operates as an independent

company from Westlaw and contracts negotiated by FINDLAW with customers bear the

logo "FINDLAW," not Thomson West or West Law Group.

ANSWER: In response to paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant denies

the allegations.

7. On or about December 17, 2008, Plaintiff entered into an agreement with

Thomson West for access to its electronic research libraries of Illinois case law, Illinois

law reviews, and immigration law materials at a base monthly cost of $424.20 for a

period of one year to be renewed thereafter. (Exhibit A attached hereto).

Case: 1:12-cv-01925 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:41
4

2008362v1

ANSWER: Defendant admits to the extent that Plaintiff entered into an

agreement with West Publishing Corporation, the terms of which are provided for in

Plaintiff’s Exhibit “A”. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief about the truth of the remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7.

8. On November 25, 2008, Plaintiff executed an authorization enabling Thomson

Westlaw to charge her Mastercard account, having a specific account number that

would expire on August 31, 2011. (Exhibit B attached hereto). On information and belief,

Defendants previously never charged Plaintiffs credit card for products or subscriptions

she purchased and Plaintiff always paid Defendants by check.

ANSWER: Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s attached Exhibit “B” appears

to be a credit card authorization form dated November 24, 2008. Defendant lacks

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remainder of

the allegations contained in Paragraph 8.

9. On October 31, 2011, Plaintiff received a statement from Defendant West

Publishing showing a balance due of $7,008.06 but showing no credits for payments

received, despite the fact that from January 1, 2011 through October 11, 2011, Plaintiff

paid Thomson Westlaw in checks totaling $17,144.07. (Exhibit C attached hereto).

ANSWER: In response to paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant denies

Plaintiff’s allegations.

10. On February 14, 2012, Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Findlaw to

publicize Plaintiff's law practice on its website and to create a website for Plaintiffs law

practice. The agreement specified that for such services, Plaintiff would be billed

$367.50 per month. On February 14, 2012, Plaintiff authorized Findlaw to charge only

the first month's payment on her new Mastercard account.

Case: 1:12-cv-01925 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:42
5

2008362v1

ANSWER: In response to paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant

admits to the extent that Plaintiff entered into an agreement with West Publishing

Corporation for FindLaw service. Defendant denies the remainder of Plaintiff’s

Paragraph 10.

11. On February 28, 2012, unknown to the Plaintiff and without her express

authorization and consent, Defendant Thomson West Law charged Plaintiff's

Mastercard account in the amount of $12,269.30, for the balance on her Westlaw

account. Plaintiff never renewed her prior Auto Charge authorization that she executed

on November 25, 2008, that would permit Defendant Thomson West Law to obtain

payment by charging Plaintiff's current credit card account.

ANSWER: In response to paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant

admits that a payment was processed on Plaintiff’s credit card, but denies all remaining

allegations against it.

Count I. 15 USC § 1643 - Truth in Lending Act

12. Defendants, by failing to notify Plaintiff of that it would use her Mastercard

account in payment of amounts owed and further failing to advise her that her credit

card account would be debited in the amount of $12,269.30, caused injury to the

Plaintiff by reason of its duplicitous and fraudulent conduct. Section §1643(a)(1)(E) of

the Truth in Lending Act exempts a card holder for liability to pay unauthorized credit

charges unless the unauthorized use occurred before the card issuer was notified of the

charges. Defendants failed to advise Plaintiff of its intention to charge $12,269.30 to her

Mastercard account prior to doing so, knowing that she would protest such actions as

unauthorized, fraudulent and illegal with Mastercard before such charges were made.

Case: 1:12-cv-01925 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:43
6

2008362v1

Its intention was to make Plaintiff liable for the total amount of her balance charged to

Mastercard by not advising her of its intention to do so.

ANSWER: In response to paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant

denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Defendant lacks knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remainder of the allegations

contained in Paragraph 12.

Count II-15 U.S.C.§1692f-Unconscionable Means to Collect a Debt

13. It its usual and ordinary business dealings, Thomson West enforces payments

from customers by sending monthly statements, past due notices, phone calls and the

Auto-charge procedure to use a customer's credit card account to secure payment. For

purposes of 15 U.S.0 §1692f, it is a debt collector for itself and for its subsidiaries using

various ways to obtain payment on account.

ANSWER: In response to paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant

denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Defendant lacks knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remainder of the allegations

contained in Paragraph 13.

14. Defendants were well aware of the fact that any permission given by Plaintiff to

charge her Mastercard account for Westlaw electronic usage expired on August 31,

2011 and that the credit card number was invalid. Under the guise of selling its

FINDLAW website services to the Plaintiff, Defendants' sales person, on February 14,

2011, requested Plaintiff to charge the first month of the FINDLAW charges on her

credit card and Plaintiff complied. (Exhibit D attached hereto). Defendant Thomson

West obtained a new Mastercard account number, thereby enabling it to charge

Case: 1:12-cv-01925 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:44
7

2008362v1

$12,269.30 for the Westlaw charges, despite the fact that the company lacked Plaintiff's

express auto-charge agreement.

ANSWER: In response to paragraph 14 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant

denies all allegations against it.

15. That Thomson West, through unconscionable and deceitful means

collected a debt without Plaintiff's knowledge or prior authorization.

ANSWER: In response to paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant

denies all allegations against it.

16. Plaintiff has demanded that Westlaw take back the charges it made to her

Mastercard account, but Westlaw refuses to do so.

ANSWER: In response to paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant

denies all allegations against it.

17. Plaintiff has demanded that Westlaw terminate all contracts with her,

including the Findlaw account, but Defendants refuse to do so. In fact, Westlaw has

sent a statement for usage fees, persisting in its intention to unlawfully use Plaintiff's

credit card account over her strong objections. (Exhibit E attached hereto)

ANSWER: In response to paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant

denies all allegations against it.

18. That as a result of the Defendants unlawful, fraudulent and deceitful actions, the

additional charges to Plaintiffs personal account have reduced her creditworthiness,

causing her emotional distress and aggravation and she is fearful that the action of the

Defendant may prevents her from qualifying for refinancing of her home mortgage.

ANSWER: In response to paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant

denies all allegations against it.

Case: 1:12-cv-01925 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:45
8

2008362v1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

SECOND DEFENESE

The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act is inapplicable to this matter.

THIRD DEFENSE

The Truth in Lending Act is inapplicable to this matter.

FOURTH DEFENSE

Pursuant to the agreements between the parties, this Court is without jurisdiction

over the matter.

FIFTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by the terms and conditions of the agreements

entered into by the parties.

SIXTH DEFENSE

Any violation of the law or damage suffered by Plaintiff, which Defendant denies,

was due to the affirmative actions and/or omissions of Plaintiff or others, and does not

give rise to any claim of damages and/or liability against Defendant.

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for an order and judgment of this Court in its

favor against Plaintiff as follows:

1. Dismissing all causes of action against Defendant with prejudice and on

the merits; and,

2. Awarding Defendant such other and further relief as the Court deems

just and equitable.

Case: 1:12-cv-01925 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:46
9

2008362v1

Dated: May 4, 2012.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Michael S. Poncin

One of the attorneys for Defendant

Michael S. Poncin

James R. Bedell

MOSS & BARNETT, PA

4800 Wells Fargo Center

90 South Seventh Street

Minneapolis, MN 55402

Case: 1:12-cv-01925 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:47