PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PAGE 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

HATCHMED CORP.

on behalf of itself and others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

§

§

§

§ Civil Action No. ____20-cv-3377____

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

§

v. §

HEALTHCARE INFORMATION AND 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS SOCIETY, INC.

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Hatchmed Corp. (“HatchMed” or “Plaintiff”) on behalf of itself and all similarly 

situated persons and entities files this Original Class Action Complaint against Healthcare 

Information and Management Systems Society, Inc. (“HIMSS” or “Defendant”).

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This case concerns HIMSS’ unilateral decision to keep all of the money paid to it 

for a tradeshow that it cancelled.

2. HatchMed is a small business that sells medical devices, beds, and stretchers. 

Defendant HIMSS operates an industry-wide annual tradeshow focusing on the medical space. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff entered into a contract with HIMSS to be an exhibitor at the annual 

tradeshow. Plaintiff, like the other exhibitors, provided funds to Defendant for floorspace at the 

tradeshow. Citing COVID-19, Defendant cancelled the tradeshow. Incredibly, Defendant decided 

to use COVID-19 as a transparent opportunity for a cash grab—Defendant unilaterally kept

Plaintiff’s and the other exhibitors’ money without basis. Therefore, the named Plaintiff brings the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03377 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PAGE 2

current action on behalf of a class of businesses and exhibitors that have been injured by 

Defendant’s conduct.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff HatchMed Corp. is a corporation duly formed and existing under the laws 

of the State of Washington. Plaintiff brings this action on its own behalf and behalf of all those 

similarly situated.

4. Defendant HIMSS is a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the 

laws of the State of Illinois. It may be served with process and citation through its registered agent, 

Harold Wolf III, at 33 West Monroe St., Ste. 1700, Chicago, IL 60603.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This action is within the original jurisdiction of this Court under the Class Action 

Fairness Act of 2005, P.L. No. 109-2, codified in pertinent part at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and 

1453(b) (“CAFA”). CAFA grants district courts original jurisdiction over putative class actions in 

which: (i) the putative class consists of at least 100 proposed class members; (ii) the amount in 

controversy exceeds $5 million in the aggregate, exclusive of interest and costs; and (iii) any 

member of the putative class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from that of any defendant 

(minimal diversity). Each of the requirements for original jurisdiction under CAFA are met here: 

(i) HIMSS reports that there are more than 1,300 unique exhibitors at the HIMSS conference; 

(ii) upon information and belief, the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million; and (iii) HatchMed 

is a citizen of a State different from that of HIMSS.

6. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 USC § 1391 because it is the judicial 

district in which Defendant resides. Additionally, venue in Cook County, Illinois is mandatory 

under the parties’ agreement.

Case: 1:20-cv-03377 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:2
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PAGE 3

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7. Defendant HIMSS claims to be “a global advisor and thought leader supporting the 

transformation of the health ecosystem through information and technology.” It purports to serve 

the “global health information and technology communities with focused operations across North 

America, Europe, the United Kingdom, the Middle East and Asia Pacific.”

8. As a self-described “thought leader” in the healthcare ecosystem, Defendant puts 

on an annual tradeshow. The tradeshow was scheduled to take place this year on March 9 through 

March 13 in Orlando, Florida. According to Defendant, the event attracts more than 1,300 diverse 

exhibitors, in what Defendant advertises as, “an impressive, expansive show floor.” Defendant 

boasts on its website that “[w]ith thousands of products and services, 400+ first-time exhibitors 

and start-up companies, 320+ education sessions on the show floor, hot-topic specialty pavilions, 

and multiple international pavilions—the HIMSS20 exhibition is a can’t miss experience.” 

(emphasis added).

9. HatchMed is a medical supply company that provides hospital bed rentals and 

certain cutting-edge devices intended to make hospital care easier for patients and healthcare 

providers and facilities. As such, attending the tradeshow was a natural fit for HatchMed. 

10. The parties executed a contract that required HIMSS to provide floor space to 

HatchMed at the tradeshow in consideration of HatchMed’s payment. Accordingly, under the

agreement executed on November 20, 2019, HatchMed paid $11,075.00 for tradeshow space to 

exhibit its goods and services, which HIMSS accepted. 

11. Upon information and belief, as with HatchMed, the Class Members each entered 

into similar contracts whereby HIMSS was to provide each Class Member floorspace and 

tradeshow access in connection with rendering the payment due under the contract.

Case: 1:20-cv-03377 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:3
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PAGE 4

12. On March 5, 2020, citing reports from the World Health Organization and others, 

Defendant’s “Strategic Communications” Director, Karen D. Groppe, announced via press release 

that the HIMSS tradeshow was cancelled.

13. However, unlike other industry-wide tradeshows, HIMSS decided to utilize its 

cancellation as an unauthorized cash grab, as it unilaterally determined to keep the money that its 

exhibitors paid.

14. As such, by cancelling the tradeshow, refusing to provide the exhibit space that 

HatchMed and the Class Members paid for, and by refusing to return the funds paid for the exhibit 

space, Defendant breached its contract with HatchMed and the Class Members.

15. Defendant’s policy of taking exhibitors’ money, cancelling the tradeshow they paid 

for, and refusing to return their funds was a global decision. As such, their actions constitute a 

breach of contract with all those exhibitors similarly situated to HatchMed.

16. Defendant has sought to avoid liability for its improper activities by seeking 

releases in exchange for a pittance, seeking to require distressed companies to agree to “Final 

Remedies.”

17. Because Defendant has sought to keep funds that rightly belong to critical medical 

companies during this critical time, Plaintiff is forced to bring this class action lawsuit seeking 

recovery for itself and on behalf of those similarly situated.

CLASS

18. Plaintiff exemplifies the Class Members who are exhibitors that provided funds to 

Defendant to obtain exhibit space at Defendant’s annual tradeshow pursuant to an agreement, and 

whose funds were retained by Defendant after the tradeshow’s cancellation.

Case: 1:20-cv-03377 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:4
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PAGE 5

19. Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the Class Members, brings this action to ensure that 

exhibitors harmed by HIMSS’ improper actions are compensated for the damages HIMSS caused.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

20. The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated herein by 

reference.

21. Plaintiff brings this action as a nationwide class action pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 23. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals consisting of:

All entities that provided funds to HIMSS in payment for exhibition space at the 

HIMSS tradeshow which was planned to take place on March 9 – 13 in Orlando, 

Florida, whose funds were kept by HIMSS after the cancellation of the tradeshow 

(the “Class”).

22. Excluded from the Class are Defendant, as well as its officers, employees, agents, 

board members and legal counsel, and any judge who presides over this action (or spouse or family 

member of presiding judge), as well as all past and present employees, officers and directors of 

HIMSS, and any entity that executed a valid release in favor of HIMSS for its conduct alleged 

herein.

23. Plaintiff reserves the right to expand, limit, modify, or amend this class definition, 

including the addition of one or more subclasses, in connection with Plaintiff’s motion for class 

certifications, or at any other time, based upon, inter alia, changing circumstances and/or new facts 

obtained during discovery.

24. This action is properly brought as a class action because the Class Members are so 

numerous that joinder of all of them is impracticable. Class Members are widely dispersed 

throughout the United States. While the exact number of Class Members is unknown to Plaintiff 

at this time, and can only be ascertained via discovery, Plaintiff believes that there are likely over 

one thousand putative Class Members. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03377 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:5
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PAGE 6

25. This action is also properly brought as a class action because certain common 

questions of law and/or fact exist as to all Class Members that predominate over any questions 

solely affecting individual Class Members including, inter alia: (1) whether Defendant breached 

the contract concerning the tradeshow by cancelling the tradeshow and refusing to issue refunds 

to entities that paid to participate; (2) whether Defendant complied with its legal obligations under 

the terms of the contract; and (3) whether Defendant has any valid legal defense for its conduct. 

As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members were wrongfully deprived of their funds without basis by 

HIMSS.

26. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class Members’ claims since each provided 

funds to HIMSS under a contract that were wrongfully retained by Defendant.

27. Class Members’ interest will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff’s interests are consistent with those of the Class Members. Plaintiff and the Class 

Members are represented by experienced and able counsel knowledgeable about this litigation.

28. Plaintiff’s interests are not antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the interest it seeks 

to represent. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that would be encountered in the management of this 

litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. 

29. Class certification, therefore, is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23 because the common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions 

affecting individual Class Members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for 

the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.

30. The expense and burden of litigation would substantially impair the ability of the 

Class Members to pursue individual lawsuits in order to vindicate their rights. In the absence of a 

class action, Defendant will reap and retain the benefits of its wrongdoing.

Case: 1:20-cv-03377 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:6
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PAGE 7

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF CONTRACT

31. Plaintiff restates the foregoing allegations as if set forth fully herein.

32. A valid and enforceable contract exists between Plaintiff and the Class Members 

and Defendant.

33. Plaintiff and the Class Members performed under the contract by rendering

payment for exhibit space and are not in breach. All conditions precedent have been met.

34. Defendant breached the contract by cancelling the trade show, but keeping funds 

paid for it.

35. Plaintiff and the Class Members suffered injury as a result of Defendant’s breach 

of contract.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: UNJUST ENRICHMENT

36. Plaintiff restates the foregoing allegations as if set forth fully herein. Plaintiff makes 

this claim in the alternative to its claim for breach of contract.

37. Defendant retained a benefit to Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ detriment.

38. Defendant’s retention of the benefit violates fundamental principles of justice, 

equity, and good conscience.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

39. Plaintiff restates the foregoing allegations as if set forth fully herein. Plaintiff makes 

this claim in the alternative to its claim for breach of contract.

40. Defendant made an unambiguous promise to Plaintiff.

41. Plaintiff relied on such a promise.

42. Plaintiff's reliance was expected and foreseeable by Defendant.

43. Plaintiff relied on the promise to its detriment.

Case: 1:20-cv-03377 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:7
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PAGE 8

DEMAND FOR JURY

44. Plaintiff and Class Members demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

45. Considering these premises, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court, upon 

final disposition of this matter, enter judgment against Defendant for the following relief:

(A) Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

(B) Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all sums at the maximum rate allowed 

by law;

(C) Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses 

incurred in the filing and prosecution of this action;

(D) All costs of court;

(E) Any and all costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in any and all related 

appeals and collateral actions (if any); and

(F) Such other relief to which this Court deems Plaintiff and all Class Members justly 

entitled.

Dated: June 8, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Nicole L. Little

Nicholas T. Peters (IL 6279677)

ntpete@fitcheven.com

Nicole L. Little (IL 6297047)

nlittle@fitcheven.com

FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY LLP

120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2100

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Telephone: (312) 577-7000

Peyton J. Healey

Texas State Bar No. 24035918 (application for 

admission pro hac vice forthcoming)

Case: 1:20-cv-03377 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:8
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PAGE 9

Courtney E. Jackson

Texas State Bar No. 24116560 (application for 

admission pro hac vice forthcoming)

Hedrick Kring, PLLC

1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4650

Dallas, Texas 75201

(Tel.): (214) 880-9600

(Fax): (214) 481-1844 

Peyton@HedrickKring.com

Courtney@HedrickKring.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

AND CLASS MEMBERS

Case: 1:20-cv-03377 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:9