relationship. This Court therefore continues to await something
more from counsel, a matter that may be discussed at the time of

the next telephonic status hearing at 8:45 a.m. August 15, 2001.

To Mn Sadie

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: July 31, 2001

3 c:\wptoxe\parker m09


Minot# Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

vin Magistrate Judge Milton 1, Shadur “than Asse Sud

CASE NUMBER 01 C 4250 DATE 7/31/2001
CASE William Parker vs. Phillips Chevrolet
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, c.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

03) Qa Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due

(3) imi} Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue___.

(4) im Ruling/Hearing on eset for___—__att

(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor____at

(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___——ssetfor__——saat__—

(7) im] Trial[set for/re-set for]on__—_aat

(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto_ at

(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
CIFRCP4(m) €lGeneral Rule21 CIFRCP41(a)(1)  FRCP41(a)(2).

ao) [Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. This Court therefore continues to

await something more from counsel, a matter that may be discussed at the time of the next telephonic

status hearing at 8:45 a.m. August 15, 2001.

(il) om [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. somber of neice
VY | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Notified counsel by telephone. JUL 3 1 2001
Docketing to mail notices, ny .
Mail AO 450 form. wu nem ut chal rials iw“
Pence te
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. PERT NEE TING
Olu air001
scounroom LS! AW 8 10 date mited notice
sn deputy’s ow
initials :
Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM PARKER and MELISSA PYTLEWSKI,

Plaintiffs,

PHILLIPS CHEVROLET, INC., GENERAL
MOTORS CORP., and FIRSTAR BANK, N.A.,

DOCKETED

JUL 3 1 209

)
)
)
)
v. ) No. 01 ¢C 4250
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

General Motors Corp. (“GM”) has filed a motion for its
dismissal from this action, in which William Parker and Melissa
Pytlewski have sued GM, Phillips Chevrolet, Inc. (“Phillips”) and
Firstar Bank, N.A., asserting several claims based on plaintiffs’
purchase of a used car from Phillips. That purchase, says GM, does
not permit an action against it -- GM was admittedly not the seller
of the vehicle -- under the Truth In Lending Act.

Plaintiffs’ counsel have now responded to this Court’s oral
inquiry, made when the matter was brought before it on GM’s motion,
as to what good faith basis exists for alleging that Phillips is an

agent of GM in connection with the sale of used cars (as

contrasted, for example, with any agency argument based on
Phillips’ dealer relationship with GM regarding any new cars that

GM sells to Phillips).*+ For that purpose counsel points to the

10f course Phillips has obtained the used cars that it sells
from private parties, either via trade-ins or via purchases from

those parties.


opinion by this Court's respected colleague, Honorable Matthew

Kennelly, in Kent v. Celozzi-Ettelson Chevrolet, Inc., No. 99 C

2868, 1999 WL 1021044 (N.D, Ill. Nov. 3), in which Judge Kennelly
ruled (id. at *3-*4) that “an automobile dealership may under
certain circumstances be an agent of the manufacturer” and that the
allegations of the complaint there, read through the generous lens
prescribed by Conley _v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957),* were
sufficient to keep the plaintiff in court against GM on an agency
theory.

But the difficulty with that presentation remains that it is
all too easy for a complaint to shape allegations that would
survive scrutiny in Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule”) 12(b) (6) terms, yet
have no objective basis for having done so. This Court’s oral
inquiry of the parties was as to the objective good faith basis
that Rule 11 demands of every pleader that would support the agency
claim.

It is of course possible that the relationship between a
franchised automobile dealer and a manufacturer might contain
elements that would sustain the notion that the former is the agent
of the latter in conducting used car sales, but that is not in

accordance with the general real world understanding of the

27his Court regularly cites to Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467
U.S. 69, 73 (1984) for the identical proposition. Although Hishon
itself cites Conley as authority, it isa generation younger -- and
that helps show that the pleading doctrine referred to in the text
remains alive and well and living in Washington.

2