H on. W ill ia m C. G ri es bach, D is tr ic t Jud ge f or the Easte rn  Dis t ri c tofW i s c ons i n, i s s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 3451 M ICHAELS IE GEL, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. S HELL O IL C OMPAN Y, a D ela w ar e c or p or at ion, et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:06- cv-00035

—A my J . St . Eve,Ju dge .
A RGUED A PRI L 19, 2010

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 30, 2010

Befo re B AU ER an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges , a nd G R I ESBA CH, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . M ich ae l Sieg e l , like m an y A m er ic an s, didn’tl i ke the pr i ce he was payi ng f orga sol i ne. So he s ued fi ve ofthe ei ght l ar ges t o i lco m panie s. S i ege l2 N o. 09

- 3451

m ove d fo r cl ass cer ti fi cati on, se ekin g rel i efunder bo th the I l l in ois Consum erFr aud and Decepti ve Bu si ness Pr ac ti ce s Act ( “I CFA”) , 8 15 I l l
. Co m p. S ta t. 5 05 /2, a nd the com m on l aw doctr i ne o funj ust e nrich m en t. The di str i ct cou rt de nied class c ertification an d ente red sum m ary j u d g me n tf o rth e d e fe n d a n t s . We a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND Sie ge l init iat ed th is c on su m er cla ss ac tio n on be h alf o fhi m se l fa nd a l lother s si m i l ar l y s i tu at ed, a ss er ting th atthe d efen dan ts a ct ed i n c o nc er t bymani pul at i ng refi ne ry m argins an d cap acity to red uc e the nation ’s supp l y o fga sol i ne, and th at this m ani pu l ati on ca used hi m to purchase t h e d efendants’ br anded ga sol i ne at ar tific ially infla te d p ric es . Sieg el t e s t i fied ath is d ep os iti on that he pu rchas ed gas ol i ne o ut o fnece ssi ty, and that w he n he ne e de d t o mak e hi s pu r c ha s e , he l o o ked to p rici ng, location, qu ali ty, an d con ven ience as f acto rs to c on si der in deci ding w here to go , with c onveni ence b e i n gth e n u mb e ro n e f a ct o r i n h i s d e t e r mi n a t i o n . He al so t es tif ied th athe c o nt i nue d t o pur ch as e th e defen d an ts’ gasoli ne after h e beli eved the d efend an ts w ere e ng a g i ngi n un f a i rc o nd uc ta nd tha th e c o ul d ( a nd di d) pu rchas e g aso l i ne fro m non- defe nd ants. I nstea d ofbr i ngi ng sui t under anti tr ust l aw , S i ege l bro ught sui t under I CFA , co ntending the defendants’ pu rpor ted m ani pu l ati on of the nati on’ s supp l y of ga so lin e c on st itu te d a n u n fair p ra c tic e t h at res u lte d in ar ti fi ci al l y i nfl at ed pr i ce s atthe pump. S i eg ela lso s o ug ht r ec o ve r y unde rthe c o m m on l aw the o r y o funj us t en r i ch

-N o. 09

- 3451 3

men t, a r g uingtha tthe de fe nd a nt s ’ i nt e nt i o na lr e s t r i cti on o f th e na ti o n’ s su ppl y o f g as o l i ne unj us tly i nfl at ed the pri ce o fga sol i ne thr oughout I l l i noi s. Aft e rfi r s tmo v i ngf o rc e r t i fi c a t i o n o fa n at i o nwi de cl ass and m ult i

- sta te cl ass es orsubcl asses o f reta i lga sol i ne purchase rs ( w hi ch the dist ri ct c ourtdeni ed), S i egel m ov ed for c er tific at ion of a c las s c om p ris in g on ly Illino is retail p urc ha sers of gasoline , w hich the d istric t cou rt al so denie d. I n denyi ng cl ass cer ti fi cati on , the di str i ct cour t co ncl ud ed that Si ege lcou ld n ot est abl i sh thr ough co m m o n pr o of tha t th e al l eg at i o ns a g ains t th e defen dan ts pr o xi m at el y c au se d ha r m t o e ac h mem be ro fthe pu tat i ve cl ass . Thi s cour t then denie d S i ege l ’ s Fed. R. Ci v. P . 23(f) P et itio n for L ea ve to A p p ea l. Then, the d istr i ct c ourtgr anted the defendants’ m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent. Sp ec ifica lly, th e d ist ric t c ou rth eld th at S i e g e l co u ld no t pr eva i lunde rhi s unf ai rpr ac ti ce s cl ai m b ec au se he f ai l ed to se t for th suffi ci ent e vid ence that but fo r the defendants’ purport edl y unf ai r cond u c t, he would not have pu rchas ed thei r gas ol i ne. The di strictco urt re ached i ts concl usi on ba sed o n Siegel ’ s deposi ti on t est i m ony, w here he t est i fi ed that m any f acto rs affecte d his ga sol i ne pur ch as es , inc l udi ngne ce ss i ty, pr i ce , l o ca ti o n, quali ty of g aso l i ne, co nveni ence, and envi ro nm ental con ce r ns , a nd tha t dur i ngthe r el ev an t ti m e per i o d, he pu rchas ed gas oline fro m non- defe nd ants. Fur ther, S i ege l te st i fi ed th athe di d no t ch ange hi s g as o l i ne pur ch as i ng habi ts b utc o nt i nue d t o purc ha se the de fen dan ts ’ g as o l i ne ev en aft er h e b elie ve d th ey w er e e n ga gin g i n u n fair conduct.4 N o. 09

- 3451 The dis tr i ct c ourtal so ru led t hat S i ege lco uld not pr ev ai l o n hi s unj us t en r i ch m en t cl ai m b as ed o n the de fen dant s ’ c o nd uc tu nd e rI CF A, r e a s o ningtha tb e c a us e he co uld notes tabl i sh a pri vate ca u se ofact i on under IC FA , unj u st en ric h m en t c ou ld n otse rv e a s t h e b as is f orl i abi l i ty. Fi nal l y, the dist rict c ou rtente re d j ud gm ent in f avo r of the defe nd ants on S i ege l ’ s dece pti ve pract i ces cl ai m under IC FA , his u nju s t e n ric h m en t c laim so u n d in g in qu as icontr act, and hi s ci vi lco nspir acy cl ai m . S i ege ldoes not ap p ea l th es e ru lin gs .

I I . DI S C US S I ON I CFA “i s a r egulator y a nd r em edi alst atute i ntended to pr o te ctc o nsum er s, b o r r o wer s, a nd b us i ne ss pe r so ns aga i nst fra ud , unfa i r m etho ds ofco m peti ti on, and other unfai r and d ec epti ve busi ness pract i ces. ” Robi ns on v. Toyot a M ot orCr e di tCorp. , 775 N
. E
. 2d 951, 9 6 0 ( Ill. 2002). The el em ents ofa cl ai m u n d erI CFA ar e: ( 1) a decepti ve o runf ai ra cto rpr ac ti ce b y the de fen dan t; ( 2) the de fen dant’s i ntent that the pl ai nti ffrely o n the decepti ve or unfai r pract i ce; and ( 3) the unfai r ordecepti ve pract i ce occur re d du ring a cour se ofco nd uct i nvol vin g t ra de or c om m er c e. Se ei d. at96 0; see als o R ickherv. Hom e D epot, Inc. , 535 F.3d 661 , 665 (7th C ir. 2008). A pl ai nti ffi s e nti tl ed to r eco ver y unde r I CFA wh en th er e is u n fair or d ec ep tiv e c on d u c t. Robi ns on , 775 N .E .2d at96 0. A p lain tiff m ay alleg e t h at co n d u c t is unfai r und erI CFA with ou t al l eging tha t the co nd uctN o. 09

- 3451 5 i s dece pti ve. Sa und e rs v. M i ch
. Ave
. Nat ’ l Bank, 66 2 N
. E.2 d 602, 60 8 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 19 96)
. W hi l e char ging an unconsci onabl y h igh p ri ce g ener al l y i s insuffi ci ent t o es ta b lish a c laim for u n fair n es s, w h e t h er a p ra c tic e is u n f a ir d ep en d s o n a c as e-b y-c as e a n aly sis
. Id
. R o b i n s on a d o p t e d th e th r e e - p r o n gt e s tu s e d b y th e C o n n e c ti cut S upr eme Co ur t i n Che s hi r eM or tgageSe r vice, Inc
. v. M o ntes , 6 12 A. 2d 1130 , 1 14 3 ( Conn. 1 99 2) , t o de te r m i ne unfai rnes s and hel d a defendant’s co nd uct m ust: ( 1) vi ol ate publi c pol i cy; ( 2) be so oppress i ve that the c onsum er ha s li ttle ch oice bu t to su bm it; an d (3) cau s e c o n s u m ers su bs ta nt i ali nj ur y . 7 75 N.E. 2d at9 61
. A co ur t m ayfi nd unfai rnes s e ven i fthe cl ai m does notsa ti sfy al lthr ee c rit er ia. Id
. Robi ns on di d not di scuss M o ntes’an aly sis r e g a r d i n gwh a tc o n s t i t u t e s as ubs t a n t i a li nj u r y, b u twe fin d it in st ru c tiv e: th e inj u ry m u st : (1) be su b st a n tia l; ( 2) notbe outweig hed by a ny co unterv ai l i ng be nefi ts to consum er s o r com peti ti on that the pra cti ce pr oduces; and (3 ) be an inju ry t hat c onsum er s them sel ves coul d not re as on ab ly h av e a vo id ed
. M o ntes , 61 2 A.2 d at 1 147. I n additi on, t o prevai lunder I CFA , a pla i nti ffm ust d em on st ra te th at th e d efe n d an t’s co n d u c t i s t h e p ro x im ate cause o fthe i nj ury. O liv e i r a v. Am oc o Oil Co. , 77 6 N
. E.2 d 151, 16 0 ( I l l
. 20 02) ( “U nl i ke an act i on br ought by the Attorney Gener alunder [ I CFA ] , wh i ch does not r e qu i r e tha t‘ a nyp e r s o n ha s i n f a c tb e e n mi s l e d, decei ved ordam age d[, ] ’
. . . a pri vat e cause ofact i on b r o ugh tu n d e r[ I C F A] r e q u i r e s p r o o fo f‘ a c t u a ld a mag e.’ . .
. [an d ] p ro of th at th e d am ag e occ u rre d ‘as a re su lt of’ the d ecep tive act or prac t ic e.” ( citations om itted )) ; O s hana v. Coca

- Cola Co. , 472 F.3d 506 , 514-15 (7th C ir.6 N o. 09

- 3451 2 00 6); Ave ry v . St at eFa r m M ut
. Aut o. Ins . Co. , 8 3 5 N. E.2 d 80 1, 8 6 1 ( I l l
. 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ P r o x i ma t e c a u s a t i o n i s a n e l e men t ofal lpri vate cause s o fact i on u nd erthe A ct. ”)
. S o Si ege l m us t se t f o r ths uffi ci en t ev i den ce c r ea ti ng a g enui ne i ssue ofm ate ri alf act that “but for ” the defendants’ u n fair co n d u c t, h e w ou ld n oth av e b e e n d am ag ed , i .e., he woul d no t ha ve pu rch ase d the de fen dan ts ’ g as o l i ne at ar ti fi ci al l y infl ate d pri ces.
A . Clas s Cert i f i cat i on Sie ge l ap p ea ls th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s ru lin g d en yin g h is m o ti o n fo rc er ti fi ca ti o n o fa n I l l i no i s co ns um erc l as s ( an d i t s r u l i n gd e n y i n gh i s mo t i o n fo rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n )
. We re vie w th e d ist ric t cou rt ’s d ec isio n to d en y cla s s c e rt ifi ca ti o n fo rabus e o fdi sc r et i o n. Payt on v. County of C arrol l , 473 F.3d 845 , 847 (7th C ir. 2007). A di st r i ctc o ur t m ayc er ti fy a c lass of pl aint i ff s i fthe pu tat i ve cl ass sat i sfi es al l f our re quir em ents of Fed er al Rule ofCi vi lPro cedure 23( a)

— num er osi ty, co m m onal i ty, typi cal i ty, and adequacy o fr epres en ta tio n

— an d a ny o ne of th e c on d itio n s o f R u le 2 3(b ). Os h a na , 4 72 F. 3d at 513. UnderRul e 23 ( b) ( 3) , a di st ric t co ur t m us t det er m i ne wh e th e r“ the que s t i o n s o rf a c tc o mmo n t o c l a s s me mb er s p r ed om in at e o ve r an y q u es tio n s a ffec tin g on ly i nd i vi du alm em ber s, and that a cl as s actio n i s s up er i or t o o the ra v a i l ab l e me tho ds f o rf a i r l y a nd e ffi c i e nt l y a dj u d ica tin g t h e c on tr ov er sy .” H ere, Siegel sou gh t certifi cation of “[a ]ll p urc ha sers w ho m ade r eta i lpurchase s o fany Defe nd ants’ br andedN o. 09

- 3451 7 g as o l i ne i n I l l i no i s dur i ngthe pe r i o d fr o m a nd inc l udi ng Decem ber2, 20 00, thr ough a nd i ncl ud i ng S eptem ber 5, 2008
. ” W i thout needi n g to address the Rul e 2 3( a) r equir em ents, the dist ri ct c ourtd eni ed cl ass cer ti fi cati on fi nd i ng th at Si ege lf ai l ed to dem onst ra te that com m on cl ass i ssues pre dom i na te d overi nd i vi du ali ssues under R ule 23(b)(3). I n reac hin g this d ecision, th e d istri ct cou rt f o cus ed on th e el ement s o fa n I CFA c l ai m a nd c o ncl ud ed that i t would be r equi re d to m ak e ind i vi du al dete r mi na t i o ns c o nc e r ningwh y a p l a i nt i ffb o ughtg a soline from a particu lar su p p li er ( e.g . , p rice, nece ssi ty, con ven ience , l ocat ion, or qu ali ty of ga s o lin e) to d iscern w hetherthe defe nd ants’ co nd uct pro xi m ate l y c aused e a c h pl a i nt i ff’ s i nj ur i e s . Be c a us e ofthe n e e d fo ri nd i v i dual i zed proo f of causat i on, the dist ri ct cour t hel d th at com m on cl ass i ssues di d not pr edom i nate. O n ap p e a l , Sie ge l arg u es th at th e d efe n d an ts ’ u n fair c on d u c t c an rea d ily b e p ro v e n o n a c las s-w id e b as is wi th o u tth e n e e d f o ri n d i v i d u a ld e t e r mi n a t i o n s . He asse r ts tha t i nqui r y i nt o the c i r cumst an ce s su r r o undi ng each ind i vi du alcl ass m em ber ’ s g aso l i ne purchase s i s no t necess ar y b ecause he c an es tabl i sh pro xim ate cause thro ugh the f ol l owing: “( 1) Defendants co nspir ed to artifi ciall y raise the retailpr ic e o f gasoline; (2) Plaintiff and C lass m em ber s purchas ed Defe nd ants’ br anded g as o l i ne; ( 3) Pl aint i ffa nd Cl as s m embe r s ha d no mean i ngful opportunity t o avo i d payi ng the hi gherr eta i lpri ce; and (4 ) Pl ai nti ffand Cla ss m em ber s were d am age d by w ay ofpayi ng the hi gherr eta i lga sol i ne pri ces th an th ey w ou ld h av e p aid ab se n t D efe n d a n t s ’ co n d u c t.” Pl
. Br. at 1 8. H e ci tes Wind y C ityM etal Fa brica to rs &8 N o. 09

- 3451 Supply, Inc. v. CITTechnical Fin
. , 5 36 F.3d 663, 672 (7th C ir. 20 08 ), to su p p or t h is a rg u m en t t h at p ro x im at e c a u se is est abl i shed m er el y b y ass er ting pla i nti ff s s uffer ed a l oss as a r esul t o fa defe nd ant’ s co nd uct. Si ege l ’ s a rgum ents ar e no t per suasi ve. A ccor ding to S i eg el, pr oof th atpl aint i ff s pur ch as ed g as o l i ne dur i ng a s peci fi ed ti m e per i od i s s uffi ci ent t o prove thatthey s u ffe r e d h a r m b a s e d o n th e d e fe n d a n t s ’ c o nduc t
. Ho wever, Si egel can not establish t h at th e plaintiff s p urchased g aso l i n e for the sa m e r eas on. Ind eed, S i ege l h im se lf ha s n am ed a n u m b er of fac to rs h e c on sid er s in det er m i ni ngwher e to pur ch as e hi s g as o l i ne . And abs en t p roof as to w hy a particu lar p lai n t if f p urc ha sed a parti cul arb r an d o fg as o l i ne , S i eg elc anno t es tabl i shtha t th e defe nd ants’ co nd uct ca used hi m o r her to m ake that p u rc h as e. Se eRob i ns on , 7 7 5 N. E. 2 d a t9 6 2 ( o pp r e s s i on not proved bec ause pla i nti ff s co uld have “g one el sew here ” t o l eas e a carand avo i d defendant’ s penal ty p ro vis ion s). S i e g el’s ow n te st im on y t h at h e c ou ld

— an d d id

— p u rch ase gaso line from non -defen d an ts un d erm i nes hi s cl aim thathe “ had no m eani ngful opportunity to avo i d payi ng the hi gherr eta i lp ric e,” and thus, whethe ro rno t a cl as s m embe rc o ul d ha ve a vo i ded th e defe nd ants’ co nd uct i s a n i nd i vi du al i zed questi on o f f act
. Wi ndyCi ty i s d i s t i n g u i s h ab l e b e c a u s e th e r e we re ver sed the dist ric t c ourtafteri t had er ro neousl y di sm i s s e d a n I C F A c l a i m u n d e ra h e i g h t e n e d p l e a di ng s t a nd a r d. W e co ncl ud e that the di str i ct c ou rt di d not abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r mi n i n gth a tqu e s t i o n s o ff a c tc o m-N o. 09

- 3451 9

m o n t o c l as s m embe r s di d no t pr edo m in at e o ve ra ny questi ons affecting o nl y ind i vi du alm em ber s.
B. U nfai rPra ct i ces a nd Unj us tE nr i c hme nt W e now proc ee d t o a na lyze the d istri ct cou rt’s entry ofsum m ar y j ud gm ent a gainst S i ege lo n h is i nd i vi du al I CFA unf ai rpr ac ti ce s cl ai m a nd unj us t en r i ch m en t cl ai m s o undi ngi n t o r t. On appe al, S iegel d o es no t co ntend thatthe defe nd ants’ c on du ct was decepti ve, do e s n o tdi s pu t e tha t the p ri c e h e p a i d wa s c l e a r l y a dve rt ise d at the ga sol i ne st ati on, and does not ar gue that he had to purchase the defe nd ants’ br anded ga sol i ne. B u t, S i e g el m ain ta in s t h at th e d efe n d an ts en ga ge d in unf ai rpr ac ti ce s bymani pul at i ngg as o l i ne pr i ce s an d th at, as a res u lt o fth e d efe n d an ts ’ co n d u c t, h e p aid too m uch f orthei r gas ol i ne. S um m ary j udg m en t i s th e “pu t up o r sh ut up” m om ent ina law su it. Johnson v. C am br idge Indus. , Inc. , 32 5 F
. 3d 892, 90 1 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ), reh’g den ied
. On c e a pa r t y h a s ma de a pro perl y- supp or ted m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm en t, th e no nm o ving par ty m ay no t si m pl y r es t upon th e ple ading s but m ust instea d subm i t e vi denti ar y m ate
ria ls th at “s etfort h s p e c ific fa c ts sh ow in g t h at th er e is a g e n u i n e i s s u e f o r t r i a l
. ” F e d
. R
. C i v . P
. 5 6 ( e )
. The no nm oving p arty m us t d o m ore tha n sim p ly s h ow that there i s s om e m eta physi cal d oubt as to the m ate ri alf acts
. M a tsush ita E lec. Ind us. C o . v. Zen ith R a dio C o rp . , 475 U
. S. 574, 58 6- 87 ( 1986 )
. The m er e ex i ste nce o fa sci nti l l a o f evi dence i n supp or t o fthe n onm oving par ty’ s pos i ti on wi l lb e i ns uffi ci en t to s urv ive a s um m ary j udg m en t10 N o. 09

- 3451

m otion; th ere m us t be evi d en ce on w hich th e ju ry coul d r eas onabl y fi nd i n f avo r of the nonm ovin g p arty. A nders on v. Libe rty Lobby, Inc. , 4 7 7U
. S
. 2 4 2 , 2 5 2 ( 1 9 8 6 )
. We re vie w th e g ra n t o f su m m ar y jud gm en t d e n ov o. P ri eb e v. Aut ob ar n, Lt d. , 240 F.3d 584 , 587 (7th C ir. 2001). W e ca n sym pathi ze w i th S i ege l ’ s co n te nti on that g aso l i ne i s e xpensiv e. N o one l i kes to pay hi gh p ric es f or gas ol i ne. Or forany com m odity. But abse nt pro ofthat b utf orthe d efend a n t s ’ con d uc t, he w ou ld n ot ha ve p urch as ed t he defendants’ ga sol i ne, he i s no t e nti tl ed to re l i efunder I CFA
. W hi l e i t i s t rue that Si ege lneed not estab li sh allthree criteria ofun fai rnes s un d er Robi ns on to es ta b lish h is IC FA c l aim , he m u st p ro ve ca u sa tio n, i .e., that he was har m ed and that th e d efendants’ co nd uct c a u s e d h i s h a r m. W e co nc l ude tha t S i eg eldo es no t sa ti sfy e i th erpr o ng ofpro xi m ate c au sat i on: he f ai l s t o show that he w as harm ed and he f ai l s t o d em onst ra te that the defendants’ conduct cause d him har m . Even i fS i ege lco u ld est abl i sh that the defendants’ co nd uct was unfa ir, i n or der t o estab li sh harm un d er M o ntes, S i ege lm us t st i l lsho w that he suffer ed substa nti ali nj ury, and that he co uld not avo i d thi s inj ury. 61 2 A.2 d a t 1147. S i ege lcannotes tabl i shha r m b ec au se he t es ti fi ed tha t he c o ul d ( an d di d) pur ch as e g as o l i ne fr o m s ta ti o ns ow ned b y no ndefen dan ts , a nd thathe c o nt i nue d t o pur ch as e g as o l i ne fro m the defe nd ants eve n after h e b rought thi s l aw sui t. A nd S i e g e lc a nn o ts ho w tha tthe de fe nd a nt s ’ c o nd uct ca used hi m t o pur ch as e th ei r ga so l i ne , b ec au se many fac to rs co n tr ibu te d to S i eg el’s ga so lin e p u rc h as in g d ec i-N o. 09

- 3451 11 sio n ; his cla im th at th e d efe n d an ts ’ co n d u c t c au se d h im to pu rchas e thei r gas ol i ne at “a rt i fi ci al l y infl ate d pri ces” i s the r e f o r e u nd e r mi ne d. H i s unj ust e nri c h m ent c l ai m car ri es si m i l arsho rt
com i ngs. To s tat e a cause o fact i on ba sed o n a theo ryo f unj us t en r i ch m en t, a pl aint i ff m us t al l eg e th at th e defen d an t has unj us tly r etaine d a b e n e fit to the p lai nt iff’ s d et rim en t, an d th at d efe n d an t’s ret e n t i o n of th e b en efit vi o l at es the funda m en ta l pr i nc i pl es o fj us ti ce , e qui ty, a nd go od co n sc ien c e. HPI Heal t h CareSe r vs ., Inc. v. M t
. Ve r non Hosp. , Inc. , 54 5 N
. E.2 d 672, 67 9 ( Ill. 19 89)
. A cl ai m o f unj ust e nri chm ent “ i s no t a se parat e ca use o fact i on that, st an d in g a lon e, w ill j u st ify a n ac t i o n for re c ov er y.” M ar t i s v. G r i nne l l M ut
. Re i ns uranc eCo. , 90 5 N
. E.2 d 920, 92 8 ( I l l
. A p p . C t. 2 00 9)
. Her e, S i eg el ’ s th eo r y o funj us t en r i ch

m en t i s ba se d o n th e de fen dan ts ’ c o nduc t whi chhe d e e me d u n f a i ru n d e rI C F A. We r ej e c t e d h i s I C F A c l a i m. A n d ab se n t t h at th e d efe n d an ts en ga ge d in a n u n fair pract i ce, S i ege l ’ s unj ust en ric hm ent c l ai m i s no t v i abl e. Se eAs s ’ n B en. S ervs . , Inc . v. Care m ark RX, Inc . , 49 3 F
. 3d 841, 855 (7th C ir. 2007).

I I I . C ONC L US I ON For the reas on s st ated above, the d en ialof class certification an d j ud gm en t in f avor of t h e d efend an ts are A FFI RMED .

7- 30- 10