1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

GLEN ELLYN PHARMACY, INC., )

on behalf of plaintiff and )

the class members defined herein, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 20-cv-2945

)

v. ) Hon. Steven C. Seeger

)

THE PRESCRIPTION SHOPPE, LLC; ) Magistrate Judge David Weisman

JSB GROUP OF PHARMACIES LLC; )

and JOHN DOES 1-10, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

JOINT INITIAL STATUS REPORT UNDER RULE 26(f)

The parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), and jointly submit the following 

discovery plan. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The 

parties understand that the Court will enter a scheduling order under Rule 16(b)(1), and that the 

Court will modify any such schedule “only for good cause.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

I. Nature of the Case

A. Attorneys of record for each party. 

Glen Ellyn Pharmacy- Plaintiff:

Daniel A. Edelman (Lead Counsel)

Cathleen M. Combs

Dulijaza (Julie) Clark

The Prescription Shoppe, LLC and JSB Group of Pharmacies, LLC- Defendants:

Vivek Jayaram (Lead Counsel)

Elizabeth Austermuehle 

Gigio Ninan (Appearance forthcoming)

Case: 1:20-cv-02945 Document #: 21 Filed: 08/06/20 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:110
2

B. Jurisdictional Basis

Plaintiff’s Position: This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1367. Mims 

v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 132 S.Ct. 740 (2012); Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 

427 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff alleges that this Court may also have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. §1332(d) (Class Action Fairness Act). Personal jurisdiction exists as Defendants have 

transacted business in Illinois. 

Defendants’ Position: Defendants assert that the Court lacks Article III jurisdiction based 

on the lack of an actual case or controversy. This position is set forth in full in Defendants’ Motion 

to Dismiss the Complaint [Dkt. No. 12]. 

C. Short overview of the case. 

The TCPA expressly prohibits unsolicited fax advertising as it damages the recipients by 

depriving them of their paper; ink or toner; use of fax machines for other legitimate purposes; and 

valuable time they would have spent on something else. Unsolicited faxes prevent fax machines 

from receiving and sending authorized faxes, cause wear and tear on fax machines, and require 

labor to attempt to identify the source and purpose of the unsolicited faxes. Plaintiff received one 

or more of unsolicited fax advertisements sent by or on behalf of Prescription Shoppe and seeks 

relief for itself and all other recipients of the faxes which Plaintiff believes were sent in violation 

of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §227 (“TCPA”) and state law. Upon review 

of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt No. 12], Plaintiff has elected to dismiss the related state 

law claims without prejudice. 

Defendants’ assert that the complaint merely alleges a procedural violation of the TCPA 

and does not identify a concrete, particularized injury, nor any damages, as required to establish 

standing under Article III of the Constitution. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02945 Document #: 21 Filed: 08/06/20 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:111
3

D. Description of Claims asserted in the Complaint and Affirmative Defenses.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 

U.S.C. §227 (“TCPA”), the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2 (“ICFA”), and the 

common law (conversion and trespass to chattels) arising out of Defendants’ sending or causing 

to be sent unsolicited advertisements to the facsimile machines of Plaintiff and others similarly 

situated. Subsequent to the filing of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 12], Plaintiff agreed, 

as stated in its response, to dismiss the state law and common law claims [Dkt. No. 18]. 

Defendants will assert the following affirmative defenses: failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted; lack of standing to bring suit; lack of jurisdiction; Plaintiff has suffered 

no injury or damages; Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its damages, if any; Plaintiff has suffered no 

irreparable harm; Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of laches and/or the statute of 

limitations; Defendants lack the capacity to remedy Plaintiff’s alleged injuries; and Plaintiff as 

failed to join a required party. 

E. Principal factual issues.

1. Whether Defendants sent or caused the sending of unsolicited facsimile 

advertisements; 

2. Whether there was consent from or an established business relationship with 

any of the recipients of the alleged unsolicited advertising facsimiles; 

3. How the recipients of the alleged unsolicited advertising facsimiles were 

identified or determined; 

4. What, if any, third parties were involved in the sending of the alleged 

unsolicited facsimile advertisements; 

5. The damages, if any, to which Plaintiff and/or the putative class members 

are entitled; and

Case: 1:20-cv-02945 Document #: 21 Filed: 08/06/20 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:112
4

6. Whether Plaintiff can satisfy the requirements for class certification under 

Rule 23. 

F. Principal legal issues.

1. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the TCPA; 

2. Whether the facsimiles constitute advertisements of goods or services as 

defined by the TCPA; 

3. Whether Plaintiff consented to receipt of Defendants’ faxes;

4. Whether Plaintiff has an established business relationship with Defendants; 

and 

5. Whether Plaintiff can meet its burden of establishing that all of the 

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 are met, such that the requested classes 

may be certified. 

6. Whether Plaintiff has standing and/or suffered an actual injury so as to 

confer jurisdiction on the Court. 

G. Relief sought by Plaintiff.

The damages sought for Plaintiff’s TCPA claim are actual damages, statutory damages, an 

injunction against the further transmission of unsolicited fax advertisements and costs of suit. 

Plaintiff seeks damages individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons and/or 

entities.

H. Status of Service. 

All Defendants have been served.

II. Mandatory Initial Discovery (Pilot Program)

A. Acknowledgement that all counsel of record 

have read the Mandatory Initial Discovery Standing Order.

All counsel of record have been provided with and have with reviewed the Mandatory 

Initial Discovery Standing Order [Dkt. Nos. 5, 6]. The deadline for the parties to provide 

Case: 1:20-cv-02945 Document #: 21 Filed: 08/06/20 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:113
5

Mandatory Initial Discovery Responses has been stayed until 30 days after the Court rules on 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. [Dkt.. No. 19].

B. Status of compliance MIDP responses

The parties jointly requested, and the Court agreed, to stay the parties’ obligation to serve 

responses to MID until 30 days after the Court rules on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. [Dkt.. No. 

19]. 

C. Briefly describe any disputes concerning the MIDP responses, if any.

None.

III. Discovery

A. Proposed Discovery Schedule. 

The parties propose the following discovery schedule which, as directed, has been 

submitted to this Court’s to Judge Seeger’s proposed order inbox.

Event Deadline

Mandatory Initial Discovery Responses 30 days after ruling on motion to dismiss

Amendment to the pleadings December 2, 2020

Service of process on any “John Does” November 11, 2020

Completion of Fact Discovery June 16, 2021

Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Expert Report(s) July 14, 2021

Deposition of Plaintiff’s Expert August 4, 2021

Disclosure of Defendants’ Expert Report(s) August 11, 2021

Deposition of Defendants’ Expert September 1, 2021

Dispositive Motions October 6, 2021

Case: 1:20-cv-02945 Document #: 21 Filed: 08/06/20 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:114
6

B. Anticipated Number of depositions. 

The parties anticipate that 5-6 depositions will likely be required.

C. Special issues during discovery.

At this time, the parties do not anticipate any special issues that might arise during 

discovery.

D. Discovery Needed

The parties anticipate that discovery will be needed on the following topics and 

have proposed a discovery plan sufficient to accommodate completion in the time proposed.

1. Plaintiff will need discovery from Defendants, and possibly third parties, 

regarding to whom and when the alleged unsolicited advertising facsimiles were 

sent. Plaintiff needs sufficient time in discovery to determine whether any parties 

need to be added, to add such parties, and to take discovery from them, if 

necessary. Plaintiff may need to hire an expert to determine the manner of faxing 

and the identities or fax numbers of fax recipients and/or to inspect the facsimile 

equipment. Plaintiff also will need discovery on Defendants’ affirmative 

defenses.

2. Defendants need discovery regarding Plaintiff’s claim and the putative 

class members’ claims. Defendants will need discovery as to the relationship, past 

dealings and consent with alleged recipients based upon past purchases and 

communications. 

IV. Trial

A. Have any of the parties demanded a jury trial?

Yes

B. Estimated the length of trial. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02945 Document #: 21 Filed: 08/06/20 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:115
7

3-4 days

V. Settlement, Referrals, and Consent

A. Settlement Discussions. 

Plaintiff has requested information which would assist it presenting a settlement 

demand. No formal demand has yet been made. Defendants are gathering the 

information requested by Plaintiff. 

B. Settlement Conference.

The parties do not request a settlement conference at this time.

C. Consent to Magistrate Judge

The parties do not consent to proceeding before the assigned Magistrate Judge. 

VI. Other

A. Is there anything else that the Plaintiff(s) wants the Court to know? 

No.

B. Is there anything else that the defendant(s) wants the Court to know? 

No. 

/s/ Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

Cathleen M. Combs

Dulijaza (Julie) Clark

EDELMAN, COMBS, 

LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC

20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 739-4200

(312) 419-0379 (FAX)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/ Vivek Jayaram 

Vivek Jayaram 

Vivek Jayaram 

Elizabeth Austermuehle 

Jayaram Law, Inc.

125 S. Clark Street

Suite 1175

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Phone: 312-212-8676

Fax: 312-661-5910

vivek@jayaramlaw.com

liz@jayaramlaw.com

Gigio Ninan (Appearance forthcoming)

Shankar Ninan & Co.

875 Avenue of the Americas,

Case: 1:20-cv-02945 Document #: 21 Filed: 08/06/20 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:116
8

Suite 1810

New York, NY 10001

Phone: 212-594-6657

Fax: 212-594-6780

gio@shankarninan.com

Attorneys for Defendants

Case: 1:20-cv-02945 Document #: 21 Filed: 08/06/20 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:117
9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Daniel A. Edelman, hereby certify that on August 6, 2020, a true and accurate copy of

the foregoing document was filed via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which caused to be served a

true and accurate copy of such filing via email upon all counsel on record.

/s/ Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

Case: 1:20-cv-02945 Document #: 21 Filed: 08/06/20 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:118