IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

DAWON A. WORDLAW, on behalf of herself 

and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF 

CHICAGO, LLC; ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, 

INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 20-cv-03200 

Hon. Manish S. Shah 

Hon. Magistrate Gabriel A. Fuentes 

MOTION FOR REASSIGNMENT 

Defendants Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago, LLC (“Enterprise Chicago”) and 

Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (“EHI”) (collectively, “Defendants”) move pursuant to Local Rule 40.4 

to reassign to this Court the actions captioned York v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-

cv-01666 (N.D. Ill.); Blum v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-01689 (N.D. Ill.); Judy 

Riebe v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-01724 (N.D. Ill.); Richard Riebe v. 

Enterprise Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-01729 (N.D. Ill.); Perry v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., 

et al., No. 1:23-cv-01817 (N.D. Ill.); Eddy v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-01818 

(N.D. Ill.); Lorch v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-01847 (N.D. Ill.); Mohr v. 

Enterprise Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-01874 (N.D. Ill.); and Patton v. Enterprise Holdings, 

Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-01934 (N.D. Ill.) (collectively, the “Enterprise BIPA Actions”), which are 

related to the above-captioned class action.1

1

 Defendants’ affiliate Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company Midwest, LLC (“Enterprise Midwest”) concurs 

with this Motion. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 122 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:968
2 

INTRODUCTION 

1. This Motion seeks reassignment of the nine Enterprise BIPA Actions, all of which 

assert claims under the same statute (the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”)), 

allege the same facts, and seek the same relief from the same defendants.2 Plaintiffs in the 

Enterprise BIPA Actions do not object to the requested reassignment. 

2. All nine complaints are indistinguishable except as to the plaintiffs’ names and 

dates of employment, and all nine assert identical claims and operative facts. See Ex. A, York 

Complaint; Ex. B, Blum Complaint; Ex. C, Judy Riebe Complaint; Ex. D, Richard Riebe 

Complaint; Ex. E, Perry Complaint; Ex. F, Eddy Complaint; Ex. G, Lorch Complaint; Ex. H, Mohr 

Complaint; and Ex. I, Patton Complaint. 

3. Many of the allegations asserted in the complaints are copy-and-pasted directly 

from the first amended complaint in this action, which involved materially similar BIPA claims 

against Defendants. See Dkt. 21. Plaintiffs in the Enterprise BIPA Actions, like the named 

plaintiff in this action, have advanced factual and legal claims that center on Defendants’ use of a 

biometric timekeeping system that allegedly violated Sections 15(b) and (d) of BIPA. 

4. The nine Enterprise BIPA Actions were filed by individuals who opted out of or 

were otherwise excluded from the settlement the Court entered in this class action, see Dkt. 121, 

and they raise substantially similar allegations as those raised and settled in this case, see id.; Dkt. 

21. The Enterprise BIPA Actions accordingly are related to each other and to this action, and 

should be assigned to this Court for all further proceedings in the interests of efficiency and judicial 

economy. 

2

 The one partial exception is that aside from the Patton case, the Enterprise BIPA Actions name Enterprise 

Midwest as the second Defendant instead of Enterprise Chicago. See Exs. A–H. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 122 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:969
3 

BACKGROUND 

5. Plaintiffs in the Enterprise BIPA Actions filed nine separate individual complaints 

in this District between March 16 and 28, 2023. Exs. A–I. These nine complaints are 

indistinguishable from each other aside from the individual plaintiffs’ names and dates of 

employment, with the exception of the different Enterprise affiliate named in the Patton case. 

Specifically, every complaint asserts that Defendants violated Section 15(b) and (d) of BIPA when 

they allegedly implemented a biometric timekeeping system without obtaining informed written 

consent and subsequently disclosed plaintiffs’ biometric data without consent. 

6. These same legal claims—based on a similar set of factual allegations—were 

asserted, litigated, and ultimately settled in this action, which this Court oversaw for approximately 

three years. Indeed, Judge Valderrama (who is currently assigned to the Lorch action) expressly 

noted in a minute entry that “[the Lorch] case appears to be related to an earlier-filed case before 

Judge Shah, 20-cv-03200.” See Minute Entry, Lorch v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-

cv-01847 (N.D. Ill.) (Dkt. 5). 

7. Despite the obvious similarities between the Enterprise BIPA Actions and this case, 

the Enterprise BIPA Actions have been assigned to different courts throughout this District. 

Defendants have now filed Rule 12 motions to dismiss and Rule 11 motions for sanctions in each 

of the Enterprise BIPA Actions. 

8. Defense counsel has conferred with counsel for all individual plaintiffs in the 

Enterprise BIPA Actions. Plaintiffs’ counsel has advised that plaintiffs do not oppose the request 

for reassignment to this Court.

ARGUMENT 

9. The Enterprise BIPA Actions should be reassigned to this Court for all further 

proceedings to coordinate efficient discovery and judicial administration. “The law of this Circuit 

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 122 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:970
4 

provides that closely related cases filed within the same District Court should be handled by a 

single District Judge.” Hines v. Pfizer, Inc., 2013 WL 5526696, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 2013); see

Smith v. Check-N-Go of Ill., Inc., 200 F.3d 511, 513 n.1 (7th Cir. 1999) (emphasizing that cases 

should proceed before a single judge where “issues and parties have substantial overlap”). 

Proceeding “before a single judge” is “[b]y far the best means of avoiding wasteful overlap when 

related suits are pending,” and the Seventh Circuit has expressly encouraged such coordination. 

Blair v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., 181 F.3d 832, 839 (7th Cir. 1999); Smith, 200 F.3d at 513 n.1; 

accord Fairbanks Cap. Corp. v. Jenkins, No. 02 C 3930, 2002 WL 31655277, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 

25, 2002) (granting motion for reassignment of three later-filed cases, in part on the ground that 

“significant judicial efficiency will result from having one judge handle all four of the cases”). 

10. The Enterprise BIPA Actions are related to this action and should be reassigned to 

this Court pursuant to Local Rule 40.4, which provides a mechanism for the reassignment of 

related cases. Local Rule 40.4(a) provides that two or more civil cases may be related if they 

“involve some of the same issues of fact or law” or “grow out of the same transaction or 

occurrence.” LR40.4(a). The Enterprise BIPA Actions are related to each other and to this action 

within the meaning of the rule because all ten cases raise common legal and factual questions about 

whether Defendants’ alleged use of a biometric timekeeping system violated employees’ rights 

under BIPA. Exs. A–I; Dkt. 21. Similarly, all ten are predicated on substantially the same alleged 

practices. Exs. A–I; Dkt. 21. These overlapping factual and legal issues suffice to satisfy the Rule 

40.4(a) relatedness requirement. See LR40.4(a)(2) (requiring only that cases “involve some of the 

same issues” (emphasis added)); see also, e.g., Sha-Poppin Gourmet Popcorn, LLC v. JP Morgan 

Chase Bank, N.A., No. 20 CV 2523, 2020 WL 8367421, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 4, 2020) 

(emphasizing that the rule “does not demand a complete identity of legal and factual issues” and 

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 122 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:971
5 

concluding that cases were related because they “share[d] a common ‘factual foundation’”); Glob. 

Pat. Holdings, LLC v. Green Bay Packers, Inc., No. 00 C 4623, 2008 WL 1848142, at *3 (N.D. 

Ill. Apr. 23, 2008) (“[T]wo cases need not be absolutely identical to be related for purposes of LR 

40.4. . . . If some of the same issues of fact or law are common, that can be sufficient to establish 

relatedness.”). 

11. Cases that are “related” within the meaning of Local Rule 40.4(a), as these are, may 

be reassigned to a single judge pursuant to Local Rule 40.4(b) where (1) the related cases are 

pending in this District, (2) reassignment “is likely to result in a substantial saving of judicial time 

and effort,” (3) the first-filed case has not progressed to a stage at which reassignment would likely 

“delay the proceedings in the earlier case substantially,” and (4) the related actions “are susceptible 

of disposition in a single proceeding.” LR40.4(b). All four criteria are satisfied here. 

12. The first requirement is easily satisfied because the Enterprise BIPA Actions were 

all filed in this District, and of course, the above-captioned Wordlaw case was litigated in this 

Court. See Exs. A–I. Local Rule 40.4(b)(1) requires no more. 

13. The second requirement is satisfied because this Court is already familiar with 

many of the core legal and factual issues presented by the Enterprise BIPA Actions. Those nine 

actions assert identical claims that all stem from this class action. See Exs. A–I. They also are 

materially identical to each other in that—as discussed above—they involve the same defendants, 

counsel, allegations, and legal claims. See id. Defendants intend to vigorously defend these 

matters on multiple valid legal grounds common across all nine individual lawsuits, which this 

Court is well poised to consider given its years of experience with the Wordlaw action. It would 

be entirely inefficient for more than a half dozen other courts in this District to expend valuable 

time and judicial resources learning the same facts and adjudicating many of the same legal issues. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 122 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:972
6 

Reassignment to this Court accordingly will save “considerable duplicative effort” that would 

otherwise be necessary were the cases to proceed in their current respective courts. Sha-Poppin 

Gourmet Popcorn, 2020 WL 8367421, at *2; see also id. at *3 (ordering reassignment where 

“resolving the plaintiffs’ class action claims against [defendant] in all three actions [at issue] will 

require each judge to tread much, if not all, of the same ground”); Stingley v. Laci Transp., Inc., 

No. 18-CV-06221, 2020 WL 12182491, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 1, 2020) (reassignment was warranted 

to ensure that “already-expended judicial time will not be wasted and that only one judge will have 

to resolve . . . complex and consequential issues”). 

14. The final two requirements of Local Rule 40.4(b) also support reassignment. The 

third requirement is substantially satisfied because reassignment would not delay the resolution of 

this case in light of the settlement the Court has approved. See Dkt. 121. The fourth is similarly 

satisfied because any further active litigation in the cases implicated by this Motion can and should 

proceed in parallel, given the materially identical nature of the claims at issue. See Sha-Poppin 

Gourmet Popcorn, 2020 WL 8367421, at *2; Glob. Pat. Holdings, 2008 WL 1848142, at *4 

(ordering reassignment where it was clear “that the cases [we]re fundamentally similar”). 

15. Reassignment of all Enterprise BIPA Actions to this Court accordingly is 

appropriate on relatedness grounds. See LR40.4(b). Courts in this District have not hesitated to 

conclude that these prerequisites have been satisfied in cases presenting materially similar facts, 

including—as particularly salient here—where individual opt-out actions are assigned to a 

different judge than the underlying class action to which they relate. See, e.g., In re Broiler 

Chicken Antitrust Litig., No. 1:16-cv-08637, 2022 WL 621807, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2022) 

(noting that opt-out actions assigned to different judges had been reassigned to court overseeing 

class action presenting related claims). They have also readily granted motions to reassign related 

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 122 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:973
7 

cases where, as here, the non-moving party does not object to the reassignment. See KPASA, LLC 

v. United States, No. 04 C 109, 2004 WL 1144053, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2004). 

16. In short, reassignment to a single court—this Court—will minimize judicial waste, 

mitigate the risk of inconsistent rulings, and generally facilitate the orderly resolution of issues 

common to the Enterprise BIPA Actions and this case. See Stingley, 2020 WL 12182491, at *3 

(ordering reassignment and consolidation and noting that such measures would help mitigate “the 

potential for inconsistent rulings”); see also, e.g., 21 srl v. Enable Holdings, Inc., No. 09-CV-3667, 

2009 WL 4884177, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 9, 2009) (ordering reassignment on the ground that it 

“would save judicial time and effort by avoiding potentially inconsistent rulings”). The Enterprise 

BIPA Actions accordingly should be reassigned to this Court pursuant to Local Rule 40.4. 

17. When initially seeking reassignment, Defendants filed parallel motions in the nine 

individual Enterprise BIPA Actions instead of filing a single motion to the docket in this case. The 

multiple motions yielded inconsistent rulings. The court in one Enterprise BIPA Action granted 

the motion and reassigned the action to this Court. Minute Entry, Patton v. Enterprise Holdings, 

Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-01934 (N.D. Ill. June 1, 2023) (Dkt. 32). Four of the other courts denied 

the motions, in all but one case expressly without prejudice. Minute Entry, Mohr v. Enterprise 

Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-01874 (N.D. Ill. May 31, 2023) (Dkt. 26) (denying motion 

without prejudice because it was not filed to the docket in the lowest-numbered case); Minute 

Entry, Lorch v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-01847 (N.D. Ill. May 31, 2023) (Dkt. 

28) (denying motion without prejudice because lowest-numbered related case had been closed); 

Minute Entry, Perry v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-01817 (N.D. Ill. May 31, 

2023) (Dkt. 25) (denying motion without prejudice because motion was not filed in lowestnumbered case, and that case had been closed); Minute Entry, Judy Riebe v. Enterprise Holdings, 

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 122 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:974
8 

Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-01724 (N.D. Ill. June 2, 2023) (Dkt. 27) (denying motion for the same 

reasons). To resolve any confusion and to address the issues noted in these orders, Defendants 

withdrew the pending motions in the remaining cases. Notice of Withdrawal, York v. Enterprise 

Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-01666 (N.D. Ill. June 2, 2023) (Dkt. 35); Notice of Withdrawal, 

Blum v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-01689 (N.D. Ill. June 2, 2023) (Dkt. 26); 

Notice of Withdrawal, Richard Riebe v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-01729 (N.D. 

Ill. June 2, 2023) (Dkt. 34); Notice of Withdrawal, Eddy v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 

1:23-cv-01818 (N.D. Ill. June 2, 2023) (Dkt. 29). 

18. While Defendants’ prior parallel motions did not squarely address the status of this 

case, courts in this District have confirmed that even a case that has settled and been closed may 

be deemed “pending” for purposes of the reassignment rule. Gautreaux v. Chi. Hous. Auth., 

No. 66 C 1459, 2013 WL 5567771, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 2013) (ordering reassignment based on 

relatedness to action that had been closed in 1988); Kapco Mfg. Co., Inc. v. C&O Enterprises, Inc., 

108 F.R.D. 55, 55 (N.D. Ill. 1985) (rejecting argument that case that was dismissed following 

settlement was no longer “pending” for purposes of reassignment local rule). Moreover, this Court 

expressly clarified in its order approving the settlement agreement that it “retains jurisdiction as to 

all matters related to the administration, consummation, enforcement, and interpretation of” that 

agreement and the Court’s judgment, and also “for any other necessary purpose.” Dkt. 121 ¶ 23. 

Defendants accordingly believe that this Motion is appropriately filed in this Court. Should the 

Court disagree, however, Defendants will of course file an appropriate motion to the docket in 

York v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-01666 (N.D. Ill.), which is the next-lowestnumbered case implicated by this reassignment request. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 122 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:975
9 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and especially in light of the fact that this Motion is unopposed 

by plaintiffs in the Enterprise BIPA Actions, Defendants respectfully request that the Enterprise 

BIPA Actions be deemed “related” to this action and reassigned to this Court for all purposes and 

for all further proceedings. 

DATED: June 2, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC. and 

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY 

– MIDWEST, LLC 

By: /s/ Danielle M. Kays

One of Their Attorneys

Danielle M. Kays

dkays@seyfarth.com

Kyla Miller 

kjmiller@seyfarth.com 

James Nasiri 

jnasiri@seyfarth.com 

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 

233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 8000 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Telephone: 312-460-5000 

Facsimile: 312-460-7000 

Jason C. Schwartz (pro hac vice)

Ryan C. Stewart (pro hac vice)

GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

1050 Connecticut Avenue N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Telephone: 202.955.8500 

JSchwartz@gibsondunn.com 

RStewart@gibsondunn.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 122 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:976
10 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on June 2, 2023, I caused to be filed a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing Motion for Reassignment via the Court’s electronic filing system, which will serve 

notification of such filing to all counsel of record. 

 /s/ Danielle M. Kays 

 Danielle M. Kays 

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 122 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:977