1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION 

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, as 

subrogee of SHIRA HAMMANN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.; 

WORLDWIDE TECH SERVICES, LLC; and 

SIMPLO TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No: 1:20-cv-02349 

Hon. Martha M. Pacold 

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cummings 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

DEFENDANT DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.’S RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 

“CROSSCLAIMS” OF DEFENDANT WORLDWIDE TECH SERVICES, LLC

Defendant Dell Technologies Inc. (“Dell”), through its counsel, hereby moves under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the “Crossclaims” against Dell set forth in the Answer, Affirmative 

Defenses and Counterclaims filed by Defendant Worldwide Tech Services, LLC (“Worldwide”) 

(Dkt. No. 47). The “Crossclaims” fail to state a claim against Dell, because they suffer from basic 

pleading deficiencies, not the least of which is Worldwide’s baseless attempt to bring direct actions 

for “negligence” and “breach of warranty” against a fellow defendant. Having suffered no alleged 

injury itself in this case other than “contribution” for its share of potential liability to plaintiff, 

Worldwide cannot as a matter of law be permitted to plead direct causes of action against other 

defendants. In further support of this motion, Dell states as follows: 

RELEVANT ALLLEGATIONS 

Plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) is the alleged subrogee of Shira 

Hammann (“Hammann”), who has sued Worldwide and the other defendants in connection with a 

January 8, 2018 fire at Ms. Hammann’s home. (Pls. Compl., Dkt. No. 1-1.) Plaintiff alleges that 

Case: 1:20-cv-02349 Document #: 28 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:168
 2 

Ms. Hammann hired a Worldwide repairman to fix a Dell brand laptop, and that that the Worldwide 

repairman negligently serviced a laptop battery, which he allowed to catch on fire – then 

compounded his error by dropping “the flaming battery on the kitchen floor.” (Worldwide Ans. 

& Crossclaim, Dkt. No. 47 at pages 1-7.) Plaintiff has also alleged that codefendant Simplo 

Technology Co., Ltd. (“Simplo”) negligently or defectively manufactured the battery, and that 

Dell negligently or defectively manufactured the laptop. (Id. at 9-10.) 

 Worldwide has answered Plaintiff’s complaint and denied liability. (Worldwide Ans. & 

Crossclaim, Dkt. No. 47 at pages 1-7.) In its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint, Worldwide purports 

to plead “Crossclaims” against Dell and Simplo. Crossclaim Count I, for “breach of implied 

warranty” under 810 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2314, alleges that Dell did not “provide a computer that 

was fit for its ordinary purpose.” (Worldwide Ans. & Crossclaim, Dkt. No. 47 at pages 11-12.) 

Crossclaim Count II, for “negligence,” alleges that Dell did not act with “due care” in 

manufacturing the laptop or warning of hazards associated with the battery. (Id. at 12-13.) 

Worldwide’s remaining “Crossclaims” are directed at Simplo, not Dell. 

 Although the “Crossclaims” are titled “CROSSCLAIMS FOR CONTRIBUTION” (id. at 

11), at no point does Worldwide specifically plead a cause of action under the Illinois Joint 

Tortfeasor Contribution Act (“JTCA”), 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 100/0.01 et seq. Instead, Worldwide 

apparently seeks to hold Dell and Simplo directly liable for common law tort damages for breach 

of implied warranty and negligence. 

ARGUMENT 

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss should be granted if, taking well-pleaded allegations of 

the complaint as true, the facts do not plausibly suggest a right to relief. McCauley v. City of 

Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 618 (7th Cir. 2011) (applying Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02349 Document #: 28 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:169
 3 

570 (2007)). See also U.S. Home Corp. v. George W. Kennedy Constr. Co., 617 F. Supp. 893, 

898-99 (N.D. Ill. 1985) (dismissing defendant’s Illinois crossclaims against fellow tortfeasor, 

where such claims sought relief beyond the limited contribution rights against a tortfeasor under 

the JTCA). Here, there are three basic and fatal deficiencies in the Crossclaims. 

First, Worldwide’s “Crossclaims” against Dell stray from the JTCA, and instead plead 

direct causes of action for “breach of implied warranty” for a particular purpose and “negligence” 

that sound outside the JTCA. This is contrary to Illinois law, because the JTCA bars any claim 

for “implied indemnification” that one codefendant may bring against the other, other than a claim 

under an “express contract for indemnification.” See, e.g., U.S. Home, 617 F. Supp. at 898. Under 

this clear-cut and controlling Illinois law, claims against another tortfeasor outside the JTCA and 

not based on an express contract – including both Count I and II of the Crossclaims here – are 

barred as a matter of law. Crossclaims I and II should be dismissed for that reason, alone. 

Second, Worldwide fails to allege the essential elements of a direct cause of action against 

Dell for “breach of implied warranty” of fitness for a particular purpose. The essential elements 

of this claim under Illinois law are: (1) the seller had reason to know of the particular purpose for 

which the buyer required the goods; (2) the buyer relied on the seller’s skill and judgment to select 

suitable goods; (3) the seller knew of the buyer’s reliance on its skill and judgment; and (4) 

damages. In re McDonald's French Fries Litig., 503 F. Supp. 2d 953, 957 (N.D. Ill. 2007). The 

Crossclaims are entirely conclusory and fail to satisfy any of these elements under Twombly. The 

first element requires that Worldwide allege a “non-ordinary use” of the Dell product; here, no 

“non-ordinary use” is alleged. Id. at 957-58. Worldwide does not even attempt to allege the 

second, third, or fourth element of breach of warranty for a particular purpose. Nor can Worldwide 

plausibly claim to be the product “buyer.” Crossclaim Count I should be dismissed. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02349 Document #: 28 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:170
 4 

Third, Worldwide cannot plead a direct cause of action against Dell for “negligence.” It is 

well-settled that “to establish a valid claim for negligence in the state of Illinois, a party must 

demonstrate that the defendant owed him a duty, that the defendant breached this duty, and that he 

suffered an injury that was proximately caused by the defendant’s breach.” Lewis v. CITGO 

Petroleum Corp., 561 F.3d 698, 702 (7th Cir. 2009) (affirming summary judgment) (emphasis 

added). Here, Worldwide does not and cannot allege that anyone caused any injury to 

Worldwide’s employee in the January 8, 2018 fire at Ms. Hammann’s home. To the contrary, 

plaintiff alleges that Worldwide, through the acts and omissions of its negligent employee, set Ms. 

Hammann’s kitchen floor on fire and negligently caused her to suffer property damage. Because 

Worldwide was not injured in any way in the January 8, 2018 incident, it has no basis for a direct 

cause of action against other defendants for negligence. 

For the reasons above, the Crossclaims here fail to state claims against Dell on which relief 

should be granted. Rather, the Crossclaims as pleaded should be dismissed, without prejudice to 

Worldwide’s right to amend the complaint to bring a one-count crossclaim sounding under the 

JTCA (and Dell’s right to answer with its own crossclaim against Worldwide under the JTCA). 

Dell states that its outside counsel previously requested by phone that Worldwide amend the 

crossclaims and that Worldwide has not yet done so, making this motion necessary. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, defendant Dell respectfully requests that the Court dismiss all 

pending Crossclaims against Dell pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02349 Document #: 28 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:171
 5 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ George D. Sax 

George D. Sax, ARDC # 6279686 

SCHARF BANKS MARMOR LLC 

333 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 450 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Phone: (312) 726-6000 

gsax@scharfbanks.com 

Counsel for Defendant Dell Technologies Inc. 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-02349 Document #: 28 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:172
 6 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on June 29, 2020, I served the foregoing DEFENDANT DELL 

TECHNOLOGIES INC.’S RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS “CROSSCLAIMS” OF 

DEFENDANT WORLDWIDE TECH SERVICES, LLC via electronic mail to the below-listed 

counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system at the email addresses below. 

/s/ George D. Sax 

Counsel for Defendant Dell 

Technologies, Inc. 

Joseph P. McFadden 

MCFADDEN LAW GROUP, P.C. 

108 W. Washington St., Suite 310 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Phone: (312) 641-9830 

jpmcfadden@mcfaddenlawgroup.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff Allstate Insurance 

Company, as subrogee of Shira Hammann 

Curt J. Schlom 

Bret J. Franco 

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, 

EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 

55 West Monroe St., Suite 3800 

Chicago, IL 60603 

Phone: (312) 704-0550 

curt.schlom@wilsonelser.com 

bret.franco@wilsonelser.com 

Counsel for Defendant Simplo Technology 

Co., Ltd. 

Scott D. Stephenson 

Paul A. Ruscheinski 

Alissa N. DeConnick 

LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP 

303 West Madison St., Suite 300 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Phone: (312) 781-6630 

stephenson@litchfieldcavo.com 

ruscheinski@litchfieldcavo.com

deconinck@litchfieldcavo.com 

Counsel for Defendant Worldwide Tech 

Services, LLC 

Case: 1:20-cv-02349 Document #: 28 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:173