IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CAMP DRUG STORE, INC., individually 

and as the representative of a class of 

similarly-situated persons, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ARKRAY USA, INC., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:20-cv-02511

Honorable John Z. Lee

CLASS ACTION 

ARKRAY USA, INC.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REASSIGN RELATED CASE

Defendant ARKRAY USA, Inc. (“ARKRAY”), by and through its attorneys of record, 

respectfully moves this Court to reassign the related case, Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc. v. ARKRAY 

USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02947 (the “Glen Ellyn Action”), pending before Judge Harry 

D. Leinenweber, to this Court pursuant to Local Rule 40.4. Neither counsel for Plaintiff Camp 

Drug Store, Inc. nor counsel for Plaintiff Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc. opposes this motion. In 

support of this motion, ARKRAY states as follows:

INTRODUCTION 

On April 23, 2020, Plaintiff Camp Drug Store, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action, titled 

Camp Drug Store, Inc. v. ARKRAY USA, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02511 (the “Camp Drug 

Action”), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff alleges 

that ARKRAY sent it advertisements via facsimile in violation of the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”). A copy of the complaint filed in the Camp 

Drug Action is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

Nearly one month later, on May 18, 2020, Plaintiff Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc. (“Glen

Ellyn”) filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois its complaint 

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 20 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:86
2

in the Glen Ellyn Action. The Glen Ellyn Action was assigned to Judge Harry D. Leinenweber. 

Like Plaintiff, Glen Ellyn alleges that ARKRAY sent it advertisements via facsimile in violation 

of the TCPA. A copy of the Complaint in the Glen Ellyn Action is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

After both the Camp Drug Action and the Glen Ellyn Action were filed, counsel for 

ARKAY met and conferred with counsel for both Plaintiff and Glen Ellyn. All parties agree that 

the Glen Ellyn Action should be reassigned to this Court because (1) the actions are related, 

(2) having both actions presided over by this Court would likely result in substantial saving of 

judicial time and effort, (3) the Camp Drug Action has not progressed to a point where 

reassignment would result in undue delay, and (4) the cases are susceptible to disposition in a

single proceeding. 

Therefore, pursuant to Local Rule 40.4, ARKRAY respectfully requests that the Court 

grant its unopposed motion and reassign the Glen Ellyn Action to this Court. 

ARGUMENT 

Local Rule 40.4 provides that a case “may be reassigned to the calendar of another judge

if it is found to be related to an earlier-numbered case assigned to that judge” and certain criteria

are met. N.D. Ill. L.R. 40.4(b). Cases are related if at least one of the following is true: (1) the

cases involve the same property; (2) the cases involve some of the same issues of fact or law;

(3) the cases grow out of the same transaction or occurrence; or (4) in class action suits, one or

more of the classes involved in the cases is or are the same. N.D. Ill. L.R. 40.4(a).

When cases are related, they may only be reassigned if: (1) both cases are pending in this

District; (2) the handling of both cases by the same judge is likely to result in a substantial saving

of judicial time and effort; (3) the earlier case has not progressed to the point where designating a

later filed case as related would be likely to substantially delay the proceedings in the earlier

case; and (4) the cases are susceptible to disposition in a single proceeding.

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 20 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:87
3

I. THE CAMP DRUG ACTION AND THE GLEN ELLYN ACTION ARE RELATED

UNDER LOCAL RULE 40.4(A). 

Local Rule 40.4 provides that “[t]wo or more civil cases may be related if one or more of 

the following conditions are met:

(1) the cases involve the same property;

(2) the cases involve some of the same issues of fact or law;

(3) the cases grow out of the same transaction or occurrence; or

(4) in class action suits, one or more of the classes involved in the 

cases is or are the same.”

L.R. 40.4(a)(2).

The Camp Drug Action and the Glen Ellyn Actions meet subsections (2) through (4). 

First, the two actions involve some of the same issues of fact or law. Plaintiff and Glen 

Ellyn each allege that ARKRAY violated the TCPA by sending them facsimile advertisements 

without the statutorily-required opt-out notice. [See Exhibit 1, ¶ 19; Exhibit 2, ¶ 20.] In fact, 

both Plaintiff and Glen Ellyn attached to their complaints the same allegedly unlawful facsimile

messages. [Compare Exhibit 1, Exhibit A with Exhibit 2, Exhibit A.] Based on these facsimile

messages, Plaintiff asserts two causes of action—violation of the TCPA and conversion. [See, 

generally, Exhibit 1.] Glen Ellyn asserts the same two causes of action. [See, generally, 

Exhibit 2.] Regardless of the causes of action asserted, however, they all require the fact finder 

to decide whether ARKRAY violated the law by sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements 

without the requisite opt-out notice. Therefore, the two actions involve some of the same issues 

of fact or law. 

Second, the two actions grow out of the same transaction or occurrence. As noted above, 

both the Camp Drug Action and the Glen Ellyn Action arise out of the same facsimile message 

sent by ARKRAY to specific pharmacies. [Compare Exhibit 1, Exhibit A with Exhibit 2, 

Exhibit A.] 

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 20 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:88
4

And third, the two actions meet subsection (4) because Plaintiff and Glen Ellyn seek to 

represent the same or substantially similar putative class. [Compare Exhibit 1, ¶ 21 (defining 

putative class as “[a]ll persons sent at least one telephone facsimile message (a “fax”): (1) on or 

after April 23, 2016; (2) from or on behalf of Arkray; (3) advertising Arkray’s property, goods, 

or services; (4) without the fax recipient’s prior express invitation or permission; and (5) without 

the clear and conspicuous opt-out notice required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4) (iii)” with 

Exhibit 2, ¶ 30 (defining putative class as “(a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years 

prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. §1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of 

Defendant Arkray USA, Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (d) where Defendant does 

not have evidence of consent or an established business relationship prior to the sending of the 

faxes.”).] 

Thus, although Local Rule 40.4 only requires the actions to meet one of its four 

subsections, the two actions here meet three of them. The actions should be deemed related. 

II. THE CAMP DRUG ACTION AND THE GLEN ELLYN ACTION ALSO MEET 

THE REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL RULE 40.4(B).

Both actions meet all four requirements of Local Rule 40.4(b). Both the Camp Drug 

Action and the Glen Ellyn Action are pending before the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois. Given the similarity of the cases, reassigning the Glen Ellen Action 

to this Court will result to result in a substantial saving of judicial time and effort. Much of the 

discovery that will be requested and litigated regarding ARKRAY and Plaintiff in the Camp 

Drug Action will also be requested and litigated in the Glen Ellyn Action. Additionally, the cases 

allege the same violations of the TCPA and may involve common defenses. It would save 

judicial time and effort to have these cases handled by one judge who is familiar with the status 

of both cases. Third, reassigning the Glen Ellyn Action to this Court will not substantially delay 

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 20 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:89
5

the proceedings of the Camp Drug Action as the Camp Drug Action case is still in its very early

stages. Finally, because the Camp Drug Action and the Glen Ellyn Action involve essentially the 

same claims and will involve duplicative discovery disputes, the two cases are susceptible of 

disposition in a coordinated proceeding before this Court. See Pactiv Corp. v. Multisorb Techs., 

Inc., No 10 C 461, 2011 WL 686813, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2011) (“[T]he fourth factor [of 

Rule 40.4(b)] is satisfied when issues of both law and fact are the same in both cases.”).

ARKRAY notes that, while meet and confers efforts are ongoing, if reassignment is granted, 

ARKRAY is reserving all rights to seek to dismiss, stay, or consolidate both actions.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant ARKRAY USA, Inc. respectfully requests that the 

Court grant this motion and reassign Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc. v. ARKRAY USA, Inc., et al., 

Case No. 1:20-cv-02947 to this Court’s calendar pursuant to Local Rule 40.4.

Dated: July 6, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

By: /s/ Maria A. Boelen

Maria A. Boelen

George J. Tzanetopoulos

One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500

Chicago, Illinois 60606-2841

Telephone: (312) 416-6200

Facsimile: (312) 416-6201

mboelen@bakerlaw.com

gtzanetopoulos@bakerlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant ARKRAY USA Inc.

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 20 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:90
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 6th day of July, 2020, the foregoing document, titled ARKRAY 

USA, INC.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REASSIGN RELATED CASE, was filed 

electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s

electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.

/s/ Maria A. Boelen

One of the attorneys for Defendant

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 20 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:91