1

IN THE UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BENJAMIN GARNER AND DEBORAH )

SCHICK, individually and on behalf of all )

similarly situated individuals, ) Case No. 1:20-cv-04693

)

Plaintiffs, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

)

v. )

)

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an )

Illinois insurance company, )

)

Defendant. )

JOINT INITIAL STATUS REPORT

I. The Nature of the Case:

A. Identify the attorneys of record for each party, including the lead trial attorney.

For Plaintiffs: Steven L. Woodrow

swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com

Patrick H. Peluso

ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

Woodrow & Peluso, LLC

3900 E Mexico Ave., Suite 300

Denver, CO 80210

Tel: 720-213-0675

For Defendant:							Lewis S. Wiener (lead trial attorney)

EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP

700 Sixth Street, N.W., Suite 700

Washington, DC 20001

Telephone: 202-383-0140

Facsimile: 202-637-3593

lewiswiener@eversheds-sutherland.com

Timothy J. McCaffrey (Bar No. 6229804)

EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP

900 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000

Chicago, IL 60611

Telephone: 312-535-4445

Facsimile: 312-724-9322

Case: 1:20-cv-04693 Document #: 22 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:78
2

timmcaffrey@eversheds-sutherland.com

Francis X. Nolan, IV (pro hac vice)

EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP

The Grace Building

1114 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Fl.

New York, NY 10036

Telephone: 212-389-5083

Facsimile: 212-389-5099

franknolan@eversheds-sutherland.com

B. State the basis for federal jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs’ Position: This case is an alleged class action brought under the TCPA, a federal 

statute. As such, this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court also has 

jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), et seq. (“CAFA”) because 

there are over 100 class members, there is minimal diversity, and there is over $5,000,000 at issue 

when the claims of the Classes are aggregated. None of the exceptions to CAFA apply. Plaintiff 

Garner is a natural person and citizen of Texas. Plaintiff Schick is a natural person and citizen of 

Arizona. Defendant Allstate is an insurance company with its principal place of business located 

in Illinois.

Defendant’s Position: Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) denies that Plaintiffs may 

bring this case as a class action. Notwithstanding this objection, Allstate does not contest the 

Court’s original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Allstate respectfully refers the parties and 

Court to its Corporate Disclosure Statement (ECF No. 20), which provides that Allstate is a 

wholly-owned subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability 

company. Allstate Insurance Holdings, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Allstate 

Corporation, also a Delaware corporation.

C. Describe the nature of the claims asserted in the complaint and any counterclaims.

The case challenges Allstate’s alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”), specifically the TCPA’s prohibition against making 

unsolicited autodialed calls and its bar against placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers 

whose numbers appear on the National Do Not Call Registry. Plaintiffs Benjamin Garner and 

Deborah Schick allege that Allstate, through its agents, placed multiple autodialed telemarketing 

calls to them for Allstate’s insurance products and services without their consent. Plaintiffs also 

allege that their cellphone numbers were listed on the National Do Not Call Registry at the time 

of the alleged calls. Plaintiffs have brought this action on behalf of themselves and two proposed 

nationwide classes (an ATDS Class and a DNC Registry Class). 

Allstate denies any liability to the Plaintiffs or the putative classes. Allstate has filed a 

partial motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay. Allstate reserves all rights to raise any 

counterclaim(s) after discovery commences.

Case: 1:20-cv-04693 Document #: 22 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:79
3

D. A statement of the major legal and factual issues in the case:

Plaintiffs’ Position:

1. Whether the equipment used by Defendant (or any third-party acting on Allstate’s 

behalf) to make the calls constitutes an ATDS under the TCPA;

2. Whether Defendant (or any third-party acting on Allstate’s behalf) obtained prior 

express consent to make the calls;

3. Whether the proposed class can be certified as a class action;

4. Whether Defendant (or any third-party acting on behalf of Defendant) made repeated 

unsolicited calls to consumers who were registered on the National DNC Registry;

5. Whether Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes are entitled to statutory 

damages; and

6. Whether any violations of the TCPA were committed knowingly or willingly such that 

the Court should award treble damages.

Defendant’s Position:

1. Whether Allstate is directly or vicariously liable for the alleged calls at issue;

2. Whether Plaintiffs satisfied Rule 12 pleading standards in alleging that they received 

calls placed with an autodialer or ATDS;

3. Whether the dialing system allegedly used to make the calls qualifies as an

“automatic telephone dialing system” under 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) or 47 C.F.R. §

64.1200(f);

4. Whether the alleged calls introduced an “advertisement” or constituted “telemarketing” 

or “telephone solicitations” under 47 U.S.C. § 227(a) or 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200;

5. Whether the alleged calls were made with the appropriate consent of Plaintiffs, an

affirmative defense under the TCPA;

6. Whether the alleged calling conduct at issue is appropriate for class certification 

pursuant to Rule 23;

7. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief, individually or as class representatives; and

8. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to bring this action on behalf of any such classes.

E. Describe the relief sought by the plaintiff(s).

Plaintiffs seek statutory damages for Defendant’s alleged violations of the TCPA, which 

provides $500 per unlawful call, which may be trebled to $1,500 per call where the calls were 

made willfully and/or knowingly. Plaintiffs also seek reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, preand post-judgment interest, and to enjoin Allstate from any alleged unsolicited calling activities to 

individuals listed on the National DNC Registry. Plaintiffs will calculate damages depending upon 

the number of class members and the number of calls following discovery.

II. Pending Motions and Case Plan:

The Initial Status Hearing is scheduled to be conducted telephonically on Thursday, 

November 5, 2020 at 9:15 a.m. (CT). On October 19, 2020, Allstate filed a Partial Motion to 

Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint or, in the alternative, Motion to Stay. (ECF No. 17). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04693 Document #: 22 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:80
4

Plaintiffs are presently preparing responses in opposition. Plaintiffs’ response is due by November 

17, 2020, and Allstate’s reply is due by December 4, 2020. (ECF No. 21).

A. Submit a proposal for a discovery plan, including the following information:

1. The general type of discovery needed;

Plaintiffs’ Position: Discovery will be needed on the allegations asserted in the Complaint 

and the legal issues set forth above, including written discovery and a 30(b)(6) examination of 

Defendant and subpoenas (for documents, depositions, and potential inspection of any dialing 

equipment) issued to any third parties who Defendant claims, or discovery otherwise reveals, 

played a role in the making of the calls or the securing of consent. 

Defendant’s Position: Allstate takes the position that a stay of the case in its entirety is 

appropriate pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Facebook v. Duguid, No. 19-511, 2020 

WL 3865252 (July 9, 2020), cert. granted, as set forth in its Partial Motion to Dismiss or, in the 

Alternative, Motion to Stay (ECF No. 17). Alternatively, discovery should be stayed until the 

Court issues a decision on the Partial Motion to Dismiss and Allstate serves its Answer to the 

Complaint.

In the event the Court denies Allstate’s requests as stated, Allstate agrees with the discovery 

deadlines provided below. Allstate anticipates that it will seek both oral and written discovery and 

may take third-party discovery as necessary.

2. A date to issue written discovery;

The Parties shall serve their first set of discovery requests no later than thirty (30) days 

following the Court’s entry of a discovery schedule. 

3. A fact discovery completion date;

Plaintiffs initially proposed a 10-month discovery schedule. Due to the factual complexity 

of Plaintiffs’ allegations and the combined eleven alleged calls received by Plaintiffs, as well as 

ongoing logistical challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendant has proposed a 

slightly longer schedule: an estimated thirteen (13) month discovery period, with the first ten (10) 

months for fact discovery and the last three (3) months for expert discovery. Plaintiffs agree with 

Defendant’s proposal for thirteen (13) months. At the close of this initial thirteen (13) month 

discovery period, the Parties will brief class certification. Following a ruling on class certification 

the Court would hold a subsequent case management conference and establish a schedule for the 

remainder of the case, including a period for any remaining discovery and dates for dispositive 

motions, a pre-trial conference, and trial.

The Parties propose the following deadlines:

• Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures

o November 20, 2020

Case: 1:20-cv-04693 Document #: 22 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:81
5

• Motion to Amend Pleadings and/or Add Parties

o February 19, 2021

• Deadline to Complete Fact Discovery

o August 23, 2021

• Initial Expert Disclosures Due 

o Plaintiffs’ disclosures due September 6, 2021

o Allstate’s disclosures due October 6, 2021

• Rebuttal Expert Disclosures

o November 5, 2021

• Deadline to Complete Expert Discovery

o December 6, 2021

• Class Certification

o Motion: January 5, 2022; opposition February 21, 2022; reply March 10, 

2022

4. A date for the filing of dispositive motions.

This Court should set at the case management conference following a decision on 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, deadlines for the remainder of the case, including any 

outstanding discovery, dispositive motions, pre-trial, and trial.

B. With respect to trial:

Plaintiffs have made a jury demand. The Parties anticipate that if this matter is certified 

as a class action, then the trial will last 3-5 days.

III. Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge

The Parties do not consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings.

IV. Status of Settlement Discussions

The Parties have not yet engaged in settlement discussions but may begin such discussions 

during an early stage of this case. The Parties do not request a settlement conference at this time. 

Respectfully Submitted,

BENJAMIN GARNER & DEBORAH SCHICK, individually and on behalf of two Classes of 

similarly situated individuals

Dated: October 30, 2020 By: /s/ Steven L. Woodrow One of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

Case: 1:20-cv-04693 Document #: 22 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:82
6

Marc E. McCallister

mem@mccallisterlawgroup.com

Gary D. McCallister

gdm@mccallisterlawgroup.com

McCallister Law Group

200 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2150

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 345-0611

Steven L. Woodrow

swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com

Patrick H. Peluso*

ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com 

Woodrow & Peluso, LLC

3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300

Denver, Colorado 80210

Tel: 720-213-0675

Fax: 303-927-0809

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Classes

* Pro Hac Vice Admission to Be Sought

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

Dated: October 30, 2020 By: /s/ Lewis S. Wiener

One of Defendant’s Attorneys 

Lewis S. Wiener

EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP

700 Sixth Street, N.W., Suite 700

Washington, DC 20001

Telephone: 202-383-0140

Facsimile: 202-637-3593

lewiswiener@eversheds-sutherland.com

Timothy J. McCaffrey (Bar No. 6229804)

EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP

900 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000

Chicago, IL 60611

Telephone: 312-535-4445

Facsimile: 312-724-9322

timmcaffrey@eversheds-sutherland.com

Francis X. Nolan, IV (pro hac vice)

EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP

The Grace Building

Case: 1:20-cv-04693 Document #: 22 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:83
7

1114 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Fl.

New York, NY 10036

Telephone: 212-389-5083

Facsimile: 212-389-5099

franknolan@eversheds-sutherland.com

Attorneys for Defendant

Case: 1:20-cv-04693 Document #: 22 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:84
8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above titled document 

was served upon counsel of record by filing such papers via the Court’s ECF system on October 

30, 2020.

/s/ Steven L. Woodrow

Case: 1:20-cv-04693 Document #: 22 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:85