1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JACK HAUGHT, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, 

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-02515

 Honorable Virginia M. Kendall

 

JOINT INITIAL STATUS REPORT

Pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order dated April 26, 2012, Plaintiff Jack Haught and 

Defendant Motorola Mobility, Inc. (collectively, the “Parties”), hereby submit the following 

Joint Initial Status Report.

1. The Attorneys of Record.

a. Plaintiff Jack Haught: 

Christopher L. Dore

EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60654

b. Defendant Motorola Mobility, Inc.:

Mark L. Durbin

EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP

225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3000

Chicago, Illinois 60606

2. The Basis for Federal Jurisdiction. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this 

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) because (a) at least one member of the putative class is a 

citizen of a state different from Defendant, (b) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, 

Case: 1:12-cv-02515 Document #: 19 Filed: 06/15/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:150
2

exclusive of interest and costs, and (c) none of the exceptions under that subsection apply to this 

action.

The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Motorola Mobility and venue is 

proper here because Defendant Motorola Mobility is headquartered in this District. 

3. The Nature of the Claims Asserted in the Complaint and Any Expected 

Counterclaims.

a. Plaintiff’s Position: In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant 

misrepresented the impending nature of an operating system upgrade for its CLIQ XT cellular 

telephone, thereby inducing him and a class of similarly situated consumers to purchase the 

phone when they otherwise would not have, or would have paid less to do so. In reality, 

Defendant had no intention of providing the upgrade as represented and has since affirmatively 

stated that an upgrade will not be released. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff filed the 

instant lawsuit alleging three causes of action against Defendant on behalf of himself and the 

putative class: (i) violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices 

Act, 815 ILCS §§ 505/1, et seq., (ii) Fraud by Omission, and (iii) Unjust Enrichment.

b. Defendant’s Position: Motorola denies Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Plaintiff’s 

claim has already been dismissed once by the Northern District of California and his current 

claim remains insufficient. For example, Plaintiff concedes in his Complaint that he had no 

contact with Motorola whatsoever prior to his purchase of his phone, and regardless, none of the 

statements alleged in the Complaint were false or misleading or consisted of a promise or 

guarantee to provide any upgrade, much less any by a date certain. Plaintiff also concedes that 

his phone had all of the qualities and characteristics Motorola advertised it as having and worked 

exactly as he expected it to work when he purchased it. Plaintiff does not allege losing any 

money or property as a result of anything Motorola said or did. Because Motorola made no 

Case: 1:12-cv-02515 Document #: 19 Filed: 06/15/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:151
3

statements that were false or misleading, and Plaintiff never saw or relied on any statements 

promising anything, and suffered no injury, he has not stated a claim for violations of the Illinois 

Consumer Fraud Act or common law fraud, or unjust enrichment, and this case should be 

dismissed. 

4. The Name of Any Party not Yet Served. All parties have been served with Summons 

and the Complaint. 

5. The Principal Legal Issues. 

a. Plaintiff’s Position: The principal legal issues in this matter include whether 

Defendant’s conduct as alleged in the Complaint constitutes (i) violations of the Illinois 

Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS §§ 505/1, et seq., (ii) Fraud by 

Omission, and (iii) Unjust Enrichment.

b. Defendant’s Position: Defendant agrees with the legal issues as stated by 

Plaintiff. In addition, the legal issues will include the issue of whether Plaintiff can establish any 

of the elements required by F.R.C.P. 23 to certify a nationwide class and likely will include 

whether Plaintiff’s claims are subject to arbitration under the contract governing Plaintiff’s 

purchase of his phone.

6. The Principal Factual Issues. 

a. Plaintiff’s Position: The principal factual issue in this matter is whether Defendant 

intentionally misrepresented and/or concealed from Plaintiff and the putative class the fact that it 

would not release an operating system upgrade for its CLIQ XT cellular telephone.

b. Defendant’s Position: The principal factual issues are: (1) whether Plaintiff 

agreed to arbitrate this claim, (2) whether Motorola made any actionable statement on its 

website, i.e., any statement that was false or misleading at any time; (3) whether Plaintiff 

Case: 1:12-cv-02515 Document #: 19 Filed: 06/15/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:152
4

actually saw or relied on any statements on Motorola’s website; (4) whether Plaintiff suffered 

any injury at all in receiving a phone that worked. Regarding Plaintiffs’ attempt to certify a class 

consisting of all individuals and entities in the United States who purchased a Motorola CLIQ 

XT prior to February 2, 2011, the principal factual issues are whether Plaintiffs can establish any 

of the elements required by Rule 23.

7. Whether a Jury Trial is Expected by Either Party. Plaintiff has requested a trial by 

jury of all matters that can be so tried. 

8. Discovery to Date and Anticipated Discovery. To date, no discovery has taken place.

a. Plaintiff’s Position: Plaintiff anticipates seeking discovery, including

interrogatories, requests for the production of documents, requests for admission, and 

depositions, on the following non-exhaustive list of topics: (i) the number of CLIQ XTs 

purchased by consumers, (ii) the number and amount of refunds provided by Defendant to 

purchasers of the CLIQ XT, (iii) Defendant’s development, maintenance, sales, marketing,

testing, and customer support for the CLIQ XT, and (iv) the CLIQ XT’s operating system and 

operating system upgrade plan. Plaintiff expects both class and merits discovery to be completed 

within nine months of the Parties’ Rule 26(f) conference, with an additional two months of 

expert discovery. 

b. Defendant’s Position: Motorola’s position is that any discovery prior to the 

Court’s ruling on the pending motion to dismiss is premature, as the issues about which 

discovery will be necessary will not be settled prior to the Court’s ruling and the costs of 

discovery in a putative nationwide class action like this would be substantial. In the event the 

motion is not granted in its entirety and certain issues remain, Motorola anticipates taking 

discovery on all aspects of Plaintiff’s remaining individual and class claims. If the Complaint 

Case: 1:12-cv-02515 Document #: 19 Filed: 06/15/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:153
5

survives the motion to dismiss, Motorola requests that discovery commence one week after this 

Court’s ruling on the motion, which would also be the deadline to serve initial disclosures.

Motorola estimates that fact discovery could be completed in 12 months and expert discovery 

three months thereafter.

9. Earliest Date the Parties Will be Ready for Trial and the Length of the Trial.

a. Plaintiff’s Position: Plaintiff anticipates that this matter will be ready for trial by

mid-October 2013 and that a trial will require approximately three (3) days.

b. Defendant’s Position: Defendant anticipates that this matter will be ready for trial 

by February 2014 and that the trial will require approximately 8 days. 

10. Whether the Parties Consent to Proceed Before the Magistrate Judge. The Parties 

respectfully decline to proceed before a Magistrate Judge for all matters.

11. The Status of Any Settlement Discussions and Whether the Parties Request a 

Settlement Conference.

a. Plaintiff’s Position: The Parties have conferred regarding the potential resolution 

of the case, but have been unable to reach agreement. Plaintiff remains open to discussing the 

possibility of a reasonable settlement at a conference to be presided over by the Court or in 

private mediation. 

b. Defendant’s Position: Motorola remains open to an amicable resolution; 

however, given the nature of the underlying claims and their prior dismissal by the Northern

District of California, Motorola submits that a settlement conference would be more appropriate 

at a later date. 

* * *

Case: 1:12-cv-02515 Document #: 19 Filed: 06/15/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:154
6

Respectfully submitted,

JACK HAUGHT, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated,

Dated: June 15, 2012 By: /s/ Christopher L. Dore

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Christopher L. Dore

EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: (312) 589-6370

cdore@edelson.com

MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,

Dated: June 15, 2012 By: /s/ Mark L. Durbin

One of Defendant’s Attorneys

Mark L. Durbin

EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP

225 West Wacker Drive

Suite 3000

Chicago, IL 60606-1229 

Telephone: (312) 201-2000

mdurbin@edwardswildman.com

Case: 1:12-cv-02515 Document #: 19 Filed: 06/15/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:155