## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 2960 B R I AN C LEA RY, et al., P laint if fs -App el lants , v . P HI LI P M O RRIS I NCO RPORATE D , et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 CV 1596

—MatthewF. Kenn elly, Judge .
A RG UE D A PRI L 7, 2011

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 25, 2011

Befo re C UDAH Y, M A NI ON, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. Thi s i s a cl as s ac ti o n s ui t br o ug ht aga i nst Phi l i p M or ri s, I nc. , and sev er alo therto bacco com p an ies and tobac co-related enti t ies. Th e plaintiff s al l ege thatf orye ar s the tobacco co m panie s co nspir ed to co nc ea l the fact s ab o utthe a ddi ct i ve a nd da ng er o us nature o fci gar ett es by i ntenti onal ly usi ng i ncom ple te, m i sl eadi ng, o r untruthful m ar ket i ng and ad ver ti si ng. The pla i nti ff s’ putati ve cl ass c on sists o fI l l i noi s r esi dents2 N o. 10

- 2960 who bo ug hto r s m o k ed ci g ar et tes, a nd the y s ee kthe disg or gem ent o fthe tob acco c om panie s’ ci gar ett e re venue under the the or y ofunj ust e nri chm ent. A fter ex te ns i ve pr o ce eding s, the di stri ctc o ur t di smi ss ed th e c as e, ru lin g th at th e pla in tiffs h ad faile d to st at e a cla im up on wh i ch r el i efco uld be gr anted. The co urt enter ed j ud gm ent forthe defe nd ants, and th e p l ai nti ff s no w a p p e a l a v a r i e t y o fi s s u e s . We a ffi r m.

I
. Ba ck g r o und In19 98 , th e p lain tiffs filed th is c las s ac tio n c as e in Il lin ois st at e c ou rtag ain st a h os t o fp a r t i es in t h e c iga re tt e b u siness. A s am ended i n 2000 , the com pla i nt propos ed thr ee d iffer en t c las s a c tio n cla im s: (1) a n “a d d ict ion ” c laim wi tha c l as s co ns i st i ngo fa l l I l l i no i s r es i den ts who bought ci gar ett es du ri ng the ti m e per i od fro m 19 53 to 1965 w h en the tob acco co m panie s a l l ege dlyco nceal ed f acts about the a dd i cti ve nature o fci gar ett es; ( 2) a “yo uth m ar ke tin g” cla im w ith a c las s c on sis tin g ofa l l Il lin ois re si dents wh o bega n sm ok i ng as m i nor s; and ( 3) a “l i ghts” cl ai m wi tha c l as s co ns ist i ngo fa l l I l l i no i s r es i den ts who b ou gh t P h ilip M or ris ’s M ar lb or o L igh ts cig ar et te s. T h is Fi rs t Am ended C om pla i nt st ate d causes ofact ion un der th e I l l i no i s Co ns ume r F r a ud a nd De c e pt i v e Bu s i ness Pr ac ti ces A ct( I CFA) , 8 15 I LCS 50 5, a nd the c o m m o nl aw doctr i ne o funj ust e nri chm ent. A ye arl ate r, th e plai nti ff s withd re w thei r re quest t o cer ti fy the cl ass i n th e “ l i ghts” cl ai m bec ause ther e was anothe r cl ass act i on l aw sui t w i th a si m i l arcl ai m pro gr ess ing in anoth er I ll inois court. A ccord ingly, the p lai nt iffsN o. 10

- 2960 3 l ate r fi l ed a S eco nd A m en d ed Com pla i nt i n 200 5, wh i ch seto ut o n ly the “ add i cti on” and “yo uth m ar ket i ng” c laim s. T h e “ l i g h t s ” c laim in t h e p ar alle l law su it u ltima t e l y p r o v e d u n s u c c e s s fu l b e f o r e t h e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me C ou rt
. See P ri ce v. P hilip M orris, Inc. , 8 48 N
. E
. 2d 1 ( I ll

. 2005). B u t in 20 08 , a U n ite d St at es Su p re m e C ou rtd ec isio n in an unrel ate d case re op en ed the doorto the possibi l i ty of a s uccess ful “l i ghts” cl aim
. SeeAl t r i a Gr oup, Inc . v. Good, 555 U
. S
. 7 0 ( 20 08 )
. The pl aint i ff s th enfi l ed a Thi rd Am en ded Compl aint in 200 9, s ee k i ngt o r eins ta te the “l i g ht s” c l ai m i n thi s ca se, alo ngwi ththe s ti l l

- pen di ng “addict i on” and “yo uth m ar ket i ng” c l aim s. The new “l i g ht s ” c l a i m was a l s o e xp a nd e d t o e nc o mpa s s o ther d efe n d an ts w h o m ad e lig h t c iga re tt es be sid es P h ilip M or ris , w ith a lar ge r p lain tiff c las s in c lu d in g a ll I llin ois re si dents wh o had pu rchas ed and sm oke d any br and of “l ow tar,” “l i ght, ” o r “ul tr a l i ght” ci gar ett es i n additi on to Phi l i p M o r r i s’ s M ar lbo r o Li g ht s. By th i s ti m e, th e l ega l theo rythatthe defe nd an ts had vi ol ate d the I CFA had b een dr opped

— p r e s u mab l y b e c a u s e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me Court case l aw had m ad e cl ass cer ti fi cati on under that st atute d i ffi cul t i n a c as e wher e i ndi vi dualda m ag es a nd d e c ep tio n w er e n ot alleg ed

. Se e, e . g. , Ave ry v . St at eFa rm M ut
. Aut o. Ins . Co. , 8 3 5 N. E. 2 d 8 0 1 , 8 5 0 ( I l l

. 2 0 0 5 ) ( de c e pti on a nd actual dam age s a re el em en ts ofa cause of acti on under the I CFA ) . Thus, o nl y a theo ryo funj ust e nr i c hme ntr e mai ne d. One ofthe ne w “ lights” defendants nam ed i n the case , Lori l l ar d Tobacco Com pa n y, rem ove d the s uitto federa l cour t under the Cl ass A cti on F ai rnes s Act of20 05 ( CA FA) , 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 3 3 2 ( d)

. T he p l a i nt i ff s mo v e d t o4 N o. 10

- 2960

re m and the ca se, ar gui ng tha t the “li ghts” cl ai m r el ate d bac kt o the F i r stAm en ded Compl aintfi l ed ni ne years ear l i er, and so a new window f ora rem ov al w as not opened. The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed the m oti on, fi nd i ng tha t th e cl ai m ag ains t Lo r i l l ar d di d no t r el at e ba ck and the re m ov al w as p ro p er . Th en, afte r r u lin g t h at an y c laim ag ainst L oril lard w as tim e-barred , the d istri ct cou rt d ism i sse d i t fro m the case . The pl ai nti ff s s ubsequen tly ar g ue d tha t sinc e Lo r i l l ar d was the r ea so n f o r the ca se ’ s r emov alt o fede r alc o ur t an d sin ce i t was no w no l o ng e r a p a r t y t o the s ui t, the c a s e s ho ul d b e r e t ur ne d to sta te cour t. The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed the re quest. A fterLor i l l ar d w as dism i sse d, the o therdefendants i n the “li g ht s” c l ai m move d f o r di smi ss al, a r g ui ng th atthe c l ai m s ag ains t th em wer e al so t i m e-ba r r ed. The pla i nti ff s co nceded that a l l o fthe “ li ghts” defendants b e s i de s P hi l i p M o r r i s s ho ul d b e di s mi s s e d; the y a r g ue d, h ow ev e r , t h at th eir cla im ag ain st P h ilip M or ris w as st ill vi a b l e f o r e v e r y b r a nd o f“ l i g ht ” o r “ l o w t a r ” c i g a r e t te m anuf a c t ur e d b y P hi l i p M o r r i s . P hi l i p M o r r i s di s a g r e e d, c on te n d in g th at sin c e M ar lbo ro L igh ts w as th e o n ly bra nd of ci gar ett es m enti oned i n the Fir st A m ended Com pla i nt, onlythat cla i m sho uld g o f or w ar d. U l ti m ate l y, the di str i ct c ourtr est ri cted t h e “l i ghts” cl ai m o nl y t o th e Mar lb o r o Li g ht s b r a nd

. La t e r, the di s t r i c tc o ur tal so di s mi s s e d the “ y o uth mar k e t i ng ” c l a i m a s t i me-b a r r e d. I n 2 0 1 0 , the p l a i n t i ff s fi l e d a F o u r th A me n d e d C o mpla i nt r efl ecting the pri orchange s i n the case . T hi s fi nal ve rs ion of th e com p lain t alleg ed on ly th e “ ad d ict ion ” c laim a nd the “ l i ght s ” c l a i m: the “ a ddi c t i o n” c l a i m pr o po s e d a cl ass co nsi sti ng o fal l I l l i n ois resi dents wh o pu rchas edN o. 10

- 2960 5

A t o ra l argum ent, the re was a ques ti on regarding w hether 1 the pl ai nt i ff s ar e s ee ki ng t o di s gor ge al l c i gar et t e re ven ue or m erely p ro fit s. In th eir co m p lain t, the p lain tiffs sp ecifically re que s tal l re ven ue f ro m the c i gar et t e s al es . W e wil l thus ass um e that they are s eeking re venu e. o r c o ns um ed th e defen dan ts’ t o ba cc o pr o duct s dur i ng the t i m e when the defendants had decepti ve m arketi ng, an d th e “ lig h t s” cla im p ro p os ed a c las s o f all Illin ois resid e n t s w ho p urc ha sed or con su m ed Ph il ip M orri s’s M arlboro L ig ht s cigarettes. Both classes’ clai m s w ere ba se d s o l el y on th e th eo r y o funj us t en r i ch m en t. Es se nti al l y, the pl aint i ff s’ a r g um en t w as thatthe de f en dan t toba cc o c o m pan i es kno wi ng l y a nd inte nt i o na l l y c o nceale d the tr uth fro m co nsum er s about ci gar ett es’ addictivene ss an d healt h prob lem s (the “ad d iction” claim ), and abou tthe t a r a nd n i c o t i ne f o un d in M a r lb o r o Li g ht s ( th e “ l i g h t s ” c l a i m)

— an d th at it w as th ro u gh th is w ro n gfu l b eh av ior th at th e d efe n d an ts w er e u nj u st ly enri ched. The pl ai nti ff s e xp l i ci tl y di savo w ed any need to al l ege thattheyw er e d ecei ved ori nj ured bythe def endants’ act i ons. I nstea d, they ar gued that the v i ol ati on ofthei r r i g hta s c o ns ume r s t o kno w the t r uth a b o utc i gar e t t e s a n d th e e g r e g i o u s b e h a v i o r o fth e t o b a c c o c o mpan i es w er e su ffi ci en t to s uppo r t th ei r c au se o fa ct i o n. A nd theycl ai m ed that th e p rinci ple s o fj usti ce, equi ty, and goo d consci ence w oul d be vi ol ate d i fthe defe nd ants ke p t thei r ear ni ngs. Thus al l the re venue fro m ci gar ett e s a l e s s ho ul d b e di s g o r g e d. 1 The defe nd ants fi l ed a m oti on t o d ism i ss the F ourth Am en ded Compl aint, ar g ui ng th at th e unj us t enri ch m en t6 N o. 10

- 2960 theo ryf ai l ed as a m att ero fl aw . The di str i ct cour t g ra nted the defendants’ m oti on a nd di sm i sse d the ca se w i th pr ej udi ce . The p la i nt i ff s th enfi l ed a m o ti o n f o r r ec o nsi der at i o n, b utthe di st r i ctc o ur t den ied th e m o ti o n. Th i s a pp e a l f o l l o we d.

II. A n aly sis I n i t s b r i e fo n a pp e a l, the p l a i nt i ff s c o nt e s ts e v e ra l deci si ons m ade by the dist ri ct c ou rt . W e wil l fi rs t b rie fly a d d re ss tw o m in or d ec i s ion s: (1) t h e c ou rt ’s d ec isi o n no t to r emand th e ca se to st at e co ur t onc e the de f en d an t L or illard w as d ism iss ed ; an d (2) th e c ou rt ’s d ec is i o n no tt o e xp a nd the “ l i ghts” cl a i m t o o the r b r a nd s m anufa cture d by P hi l i p M or ri s be si des M ar lbor o Lights. The n we wi l l a ddr es s th e m ain i ss ue on a ppea l : the di stri ctc o ur t’ s ho l di ngtha t th e pl aint i ff s’ unj us t en r i ch

m en t c lai m f ai l ed to st ate a cl ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c o ul d b e g r a nt e d.

A
. Rem an d to State C ou rt Th e fi r s ti s s ue r a i s e d b y the p l a i nt i ff s i n the i r a pp el l ate bri efi s whether the di str i c t c ou rt er re d i n not r emandi ngthe c as e to s ta te c o ur t o nc e th e defen dan t L oril lard

— th e d ive rs e p ar ty w h os e p re se n c e in th e s u it was the r ea so n f o r r emov alt o fede r alcou rt

— w as dism i sse d fr om the case . A t o ra l arg um ent, co unsel f or pla i nti ff s conceded that the dist ri ct cour t proper ly h ad j ur i sdi ct iono ve r the c as e. Co uns elthe n s ta te d tha t th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o u l d h a v e e x e r c i s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n a ndN o. 10

- 2960 7

r e man de d the c a s e t o s t a t e c o ur t, but that i tdi d n o tdo so

— and c o uns els ee m ed to i ndi ca te tha t i t was aba nd on in g t h is iss u e o n ap p ea l. Counsel i s co rr ect to abandon thi s i ssue, as the dist ri ct cour t com m i tte d no er ro r. A f edera l cour t’s j uri sdic ti on u n d er C A FA is d et er m i n e d a t t h e t im e o f rem ov al. In re Bur l i ngton N
. Sa nt a F eRy. Co. , 606 F.3d 379 , 380 (7th C ir. 2010 )
. H er e, ther e was no questi on that the case was pr o pe r l y r e mov e d u nd e r CAF A. And “ no thingfi l e d a f ter re m ova l aff ects j u ris dict i on. . . . [ L]at erchange s that com prom i se dive rs i ty d o not destr oy j uri sdic ti on. ” Id. at 38 0-8 1; s e e a l s o Bra u d v . Tra n s p . S e r v . Co. , 445 F. 3d 801, 80 8 ( 5th Ci r. 20 06) ( “[ I ] t i s the ‘ action ,’ n ot cl ai m s a gai nst parti cul ar d efendants, thati s r em ovabl e, so the subsequent dism i ssa l of the re m ovi ng defe nd ant c annot re nd erthe enti re l aw sui t i m proper l y r em ove d.” )
. There

f or e, the dist ri ct c ourtpro p er l y r eta i ned j uri sdic ti on o f th e case after L o ril lard w as d ism issed , and i t is not err o ne o us f o r the di st r i ctc o ur t to de cl i ne t o r emand th e case to st ate co urt.

B. E xp a nd i ngthe “ Li g ht s ” Cl a i m t o Othe r Br a nd s A se c on d iss u e p re se n te d by th e p lain tiffs on ap p e a l is w hetherthe dist ri ct c ourter re d w hen i t r efused to ex pan d the “ l i g ht s” c l ai m t o o th er“ l o w ta r, ” “l i g ht, ” an d “ul t r a l i g ht ” b r a nd s b e s i de s Mar lb o r o Li g ht s . T he di s t r i ct co ur t p r e mi s e d i t s r u l i n g o n a fi n d i n g th a t th i s e xp a n d e d c l a i m ( a s s e r t e d i n th e T h i r d A me n d e d C o mpla i nt) di d not r el ate bac k t o the o ri gi nal p lea d i ng ( f or our pu rpos es, the Fi rs t Am en d ed Com pla i nt)
. “Un der8 N o. 10

- 2960 I l l i noi s l aw as under federa l l aw , an a m endm ent r el ate s b a ck w he n it ari ses ou t of th e sam e trans action or occu rre nce s et up i n t he o ri gi nal pl eadi ng. ” P hil lip s v. Fo rd M ot orCo. , 43 5 F
. 3d 785, 78 8 (7 th C i r. 2006) (i nter nal quotatio n om itt ed ); s e eal s o Por t e rv. D e ca t urM e m ’ l Hos p. , 88 2 N
. E. 2d 58 3, 5 90 (I ll

. 2 00 8) ; F ed. R. Ci v. P. 1 5( c)
. Her e, the pla i nti ff s’ o ri gi nal pl eadi ng di d not m en ti on o ther br an ds o fc i g ar ette p r o duct s buto nl y made al l eg at i o ns r e g a r di ng M a r lb o r o Li g ht s . Ex pa nd i ng the c l ass to in c lu d e o th er “ligh t” an d “low ta r” p ro d u c ts w o u ld ex ten d the p oten tial li abili ty to new class m em bers ( thos e who purchased o r sm oke d brands other than M ar lbor o Lights) , and i t would i nvol ve new co nd uct and tran sa cti ons ( Phil i p M or ri s’ s m ar ket i ng and sal e o f bra nds o the r tha n M a r lb o r o Li g ht s )
. T he p l a i nt i ff s c ho se no tt o ma k e a l l e g a t i o ns r e l a t e d t o o the r c i g a re t t e b r a nd s i n the or i gi nal pl eadi ng. A nd bas ed on thi s pl eadi ng, P h i l i p Mo r r i s d i d n o th a v e n o t i c e th a tth e c a s e mig ht encom pa ss cl ai m s a gai nst o therbr ands. The di str i ct cour t co rr ectl y f ound that the expanded claim di d not ar ise ou t o f th e s am e t ra n sa c t i o n o r o c c u rre n c e, an d it p ro p er ly d en ied th e p lain tiffs ’ req u es t t o a m en d th eir c l a i m.
C. Unj us t Enr i ch m en t W e no w co m e t o the m ain i ssue on a pp eal : wh ether th e d ist ric t c ou rtp ro p er ly d ism iss ed th e p lain tiffs ’ cla im f orunj ust e nri chm ent forf ai l ure to st ate a cl ai m under I l l i noi s l aw . I n I l l i noi s, “[ t] o sta te a c au se ofact i on ba sed on a the or y o funj ust e nri chm ent, a pla i nti ffm ust a l l egeN o. 10

- 2960 9 that the defendant has u nj ustl y r eta i ned a be nefi t t o th e pl ai nti ff’ s detr i m ent, and that defe nd ant’ s r ete nti on ofthe benefi t v i ol ate s the fund am entalpri nci ple s o f j us t i c e , e qu i t y, a nd g o o d c o ns c i e nc e. ” HP I Heal th C a re Servs. , Inc. v. M t. Vernon Hosp. , Inc. , 5 45 N .E .2d 6 72 , 679 (Ill

. 19 89 ). A p re lim in ar y m at te r ar gu ed by th e p ar tie s is w hetherI l l i noi s l aw r eco gni zes an ind ependent cause o fa ct i o n f o r u nj us t en r i ch m en t, o r whethe r unj us t en r i ch m en t m us t alw ays b e ti ed to a no th erunde r l y i ng cl ai m f ound in tor t, co ntra ct, o r sta tute. The I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t a pp ear s to re cogni ze u nj u st en ric h m en t a s a n ind ep en d en t c au se of ac tio n . In Rain tree Hom e s , Inc . v. Vi l l
. of Lo ng Grov e, 80 7 N
. E.2 d 439, 445 ( I l l

. 20 04) , the pla i nti ff s were see ki ng th e refund o f o v e r p a i d fe e s u n d e r a n u nj u s te n r i c h me n tth e o r y . No oth er un d erlyi ng cau se of action w as alle g e d

. Th e C ou rt n ot ed : “Here, pl ai nti ff s hav e no subst anti ve cl aim gr ou n d ed in t or t, co n tr ac t, or s ta tu te ; t h er efo re th e o n ly su bs ta nt i ve b as i s f o r the clai m i s r es ti tu ti o n t o pr ev en t unj ust e nri chm ent. ” Id. Si m il arly, i n an oth e r c a se before the I l l i noi s S up re m e Court, In dep. Voters v. Il l. Co m m er ce C om m ’n , 510 N
. E
. 2d 850, 852-58 (I ll

. 198 7 ), the p lai nt iffs had fi l ed sui t to re cove r re fund s f orexce ssi ve uti l i ty charg es and thei r cl ai m f orr es tit u ti on o fthe charg es w as not t i ed to a no th erc au se o fa ct i o n. F i na l l y, the I l l i noi s S up re m e C ou rthas ar ti cul ate d the e l em ents of unj us t enrich m en t w ithou t reference t o a sep arate u nd erl y i n g c laim in t or t, co n tr ac t, or s ta tu te
. S e eHPIHe al th C a re Servs. , 54 5 N
. E.2d at 679 ; see a lso Pedd i ngh aus v. Pedd i ngh aus , 69 2 N
. E.2 d 1221, 12 25 ( I l l

. A p p . Ct. 19 98) ( r ul i ng tha t I l l i no i s r e c o g ni z e s a n i nd e pe nd e nt c a us e o f10 N o. 10

- 2960

ac ti o n f o r unj us t en r i ch m en t ba se d o n HP I Heal th C a re Serv ices ). From th es e c as es , i t a p p ea rs th at th e Illino is Suprem e Cour t r eco gn izes unj ust e nri chm ent a s a n i nd epen den t ca us e o fa ct i o n. In c on tr as t to th is cas e law , th er e is a rec e n t Il l i n ois appell ate co urt that sugge sts the opposi te, nam el y, that an unj u st e nri chm ent c l ai m cannotst and untether ed fro m an u n d er lyin g c laim

. See M a rt is v. Grinnel l M ut. Rei ns uranc eCo. , 90 5 N
. E. 2d 92 0 ( I l l

. App. Ct. 20 09). The M artis co urt sta ted the f ol l owing: The doctr i ne o funj ust e nri chm ent underlies a num ber of l ega l and e quit abl e acti ons an d rem edi es. U njust enr ichm ent is not a separate cause of ac ti o n t hat, s t anding a lone, wi l l j us t i f y an ac t i on f

orre co ve ry. Ra th er, i t i s a co ndi tion thatmay be b r o ug htabo ut b y u n l a w fu l o r i mp r o p e r c o n d u c t a s d e fi n e d b y l a w, such as f ra ud , duress , o r u n du e infl uence, and m ay be r edres sed b y a cause o fact i on ba sed upon that i m properco nd uct. W hen an un d er l yi ng cl ai m o f fra u d , d u re ss or u n d u e in flu en c e is d efic ien t, a c laim f o r u nj us te nr i c hme nts ho ul d a l s o b e di s mi s s e d. Id. a t9 2 8 ( i n t e r n a l qu o t a t i o n a n d c i t a t i o n s o mi t t e d ) ( e mphasi s a dd ed). W i thout set ti ng o ut a com prehensi ve tr eat i se on I l l i noi s unj ust enri chm ent l aw i n an at tem pt to r es o l ve the a ppar en tl y c o nfl i ct i ngl an g uage o fthe R a intree H o m es a nd M a rt is cas es, we sugge st one w ay to m ake se nse o fi t. U nj ust e nric h m en t i s a co m m on- l aw th eor y ofr ec o ve r y o r r es ti tu ti o n tha t ar i se s when th e d efe n d an t is ret ain in g a be n efit to th e p lain tiff’s d et rim en t, a nd thi s r et en tion i s unj us t. W ha t m ak es the r et en -N o. 10

- 2960 11

Se e, e . g. , L ew is v . L ea d In d u s. A ss ’n , 79 3 N .E.2d 869 , 87 7 (Ill. 2 App. Ct
. 20 03 ) ( “I n o rde r f or a c aus e ofac tion f or unj us te nrich m en t to exist, the re m u st be som e ind ep en d en t ba sis w hich es tabli shes a duty on the pa rt o f the def endan t t o act a n d th e d efe n d a n t m u st h a v e fa il e d t o a b id e b y th a t d u ty .”); A l l i anceA ccept anceC o. v. Yal e Ins. A gency, 648 N
. E.2d 971, 977 ( I l l

. App. Ct
. 19 95 ) ( “The t er m ‘ unj us t en ri c hm en t ’ i s no t descri ptive ofcondu ctthat, st a nd ing al one, w il l j usti fy an act ion f orr e c ov e r y. Ra the r , i ti s a c on di t i ontha tm a y be br ou gh ta bo utby un l a wful o r i m pr op e r c on duc ta s de fi ne d by l a w, s uc h a s fr a ud, du r e s s , o r undue i nfl ue nc e , a nd m a y be redres se d b y a cause o f acti on based up on that im prop er c onduc t
. ”) ( quo t i ng C harle s Hest er En te rs. , In c . v. Il l
. F ou n ders Ins. C o. , 48 4 N .E .2d 34 9 , 35 4 (Ill. A p p . C t. 1 9 8 5 )). t i o n o fth e b e n e fi tu nj u s ti s o ft e n d u e t o s o me i m p r op er co n d u c t b y t h e d efe n d an t. A n d u su ally th is im p ro p er co n d u c t w ill form th e b as is of a n ot h er cla im aga i nst the defendant i n to rt, co ntra ct, or sta tute. So , i fan 2 unj us te nr i c hme ntc l a i m r e s t s o n the s a me i mp ro per co nd uc t a l l eg ed i n a no th erc l ai m , the n the unj us t en r i ch

m e n t c laim w ill be t ied to th is re lat ed cla im

— and, of co ur se , unj us t en r i ch m en t wi l l s ta nd o r f al l wi ththe re lat ed cla im
. Se e, e . g. , Ass ’ n B e ne f i tSe r vs . v. Car e m ark Rx, Inc. , 4 93 F
. 3d 84 1, 8 55 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( “[ W ]here the pl ainti ff’ s cl ai m o funj us t enrich m en t i s pr edi ca te d o n the sam e a l l ega ti ons offra ud ule nt co nd uct that s u p p or t a n i nde pen den t cl ai m o ffr au d, r es o l ut i o n o fthe f raud cl ai m ag ai nst the pl ai nti ffi s di spos itive o fthe unj ust en richm en t clai m as w ell

. ”). This i s w h at h appened i n two cl ass act i on s uit s, si m i l ar to the o ne b efo r e us no w, wher e we a ffi r m ed th e12 N o. 10

- 2960 di smi ss alo funj us t en r i ch m en t cl ai m s. I n O s ha na v. Coca

Cola Co. , 47 2 F .3 d 506, 509 (7th Cir. 2006), th e plaintiff br o ug ht a cl as s ac ti o n su i t ag ains t th e Coc a- Col a Company o n b eh al f o f al l pur ch as er s o f f o unt ain Di et Cok e, c l ai m i ng that the c om pany enga ged i n decepti ve m ar ket i ng r eg ar di ngthe pr es en ce o fs ac ch ar i n i n its pr o duct

. The pla i nti ffal l ege d a cl ai m und er t h e I CFA and a c l ai m f or u nj u st en ric h m en t. Id. at51 4. W e fi rs t a ffi rm ed the dism i ssa l o f t he I CFA cl ai m bec ause the pl ai nti ffco uld not show ei therthatthe c l ass m em ber s s uffer ed harm o r th at th e h ar m w as ca u se d by th e c om p an y’s alleg ed ly d ec ep tiv e c on d u c t. Id. at 5 14- 15. W e then address ed th e p lain tiff’s u nj u st en ric h m en t c laim an d ru led th at it w as not vi abl e be cause the pl ai nti ffco u ld n ot sho w that the c om pany w as unj ustl y e nri ched “w i thout proo fo f decepti on. ” Id. at 515. A few years later, i n th e case of Si ege l v. Sh e l l O i l Co. , 61 2 F. 3d 9 3 2 , 9 3 3 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) , the pl a i nt i ff b r o ught a cl ass ac ti o n s ui t r epr es en tinga l l g as o l i ne pur ch as er s an d all eging th at th e d efend an t gasoli ne co m p an ies w ere unfai rl y m ani pu l ati ng and ar ti fi ci al l y infl ati ng g as pr i ce s. Aga i n, the pl aint i ffa l l eg ed a cl ai m unde r the IC FA an d an u nj u st en ric h m en t c laim

. Id. Af te r a ffi r m i ng th e d ism issal of the I C FA clai m b e c a u se th e plaintiff ha d f ai l ed to pr o ve that he was ha r m ed an d tha t th e defen dan ts ’ c o nduc t ca us ed th e ha r m , we th en c o nsid er ed th e u nj u st en ric h m en t c laim

. Id. at 937. A l though w e c ite d the M artis cas e f orthe propos i ti on that unj ust en r i c hme nt i s no t a s e pa r a t e c a us e o f a c t i o n that can st an d o n i ts o wn, we no te d tha t th e unj us t en r i ch m en t cl ai m was b as ed o n the s ame c o nduc t unde r l y i ngtheN o. 10

- 2960 13 I CFA c l ai m , a nd tha t wi th o utthi s cl ai m , the unj us t en r i ch

m en t c l aim w as n ot via b le. Id. ( ci ti ng M artis , 90 5 N
. E.2 d at 928). Thus , i n b o th O s hana a nd Sieg el , the unj us t en r i ch m en t c l a i m was p r e mi s e d o n i mpr o pe r c o nd uct

— decepti on i n O s hana a nd un f ai r pr actices i n Sieg el

— a n d th i s s a me al l eg ed con d uct al so s uppo r te d the I CFA c l ai m . And when we f o und th at th e i m pr o per co nduc t was i ns uffi ci en t to su p p or t a n IC FA cla im , w e like w ise fou n d t h a t it was i ns uffi ci en t to e st ab l i shunj us t en r i ch m en t. The M artis c as e pre se nt ed a co m par ab l e si tu at i o n: the u nj u s te n r i c h me n tc l a i m w a s p r e mi s e d o n th e s a me fraud un d erlyi ng the ICFA clai m , an d b ecau se th ere w as n o v alid u n d e r l y in g fra u d , bot h th e IC FA cla im an d t h e u nj u st en ric h m en t c laim failed

. M artis , 90 5 N .E .2d at92 8. B as ed on t h es e c on sid er at ion s, M artis ’s ar ti cul ati on o funj ust e nri ch m en t l aw m i ght b e v i ew ed as l anguage l i m i ted to i ts parti cul ar f acts and no t a tr ue v ar i an ce fr o m ho w the I l l i noi s S upr eme Co ur t co nsi ders unj ust e nri chm ent c l ai m s a s i l l ustr ate d by R a intree H o m es . Despit e these re flect i ons, i t i s no t nec ess ar y t o re sol ve defi ni ti ve l y whethe r I l l i no i s l aw r ec o g ni ze s unj us t en r i ch

m ent a s a n i nd ependent cause ofa c tio n: the pla i nti ff s’ ca s e f a i l s b e c a us e the i r a l l e g a t i o ns a r e i ns uffi c i e ntto supp or t a cause o fact i on f orunj ust e nri chm ent. The pl aint i ff s’ unj us t en r i ch m en t th eo r y r es ts o n the al l eg at i o n tha t th eyha d a l eg alr i g htt o know abo utthe tru e nat ure and haz ard s of cigarettes . T h e plaintiff s as se r t th atthe de fend an ts v i o l at ed th i s r i g htb y f ai l i ng14 N o. 10

- 2960 to d isc los e t h e fu ll tru th ab ou t c iga re tt es a n d th at th is fai lur e to di sc l o se was t o the pl aint i ff s’ de tr i m en t; a nd th at d efe n d a n ts ’ ret en tio n of th e b en efit

— the c i gar ett e r ev en ue

— vi ol ate s the fund am ental pri nci ple s o fj usti ce, equi ty, a nd g o o d c o ns ci en ce . I t i s cr uci alt o no te th atthe pla i nti ff s do not al l ege thattheysuff er ed any harm , that they re l i ed on the defendants’ m ar ket i ng, or th at they w oul d have a cted di ff er entl y had the defen d an ts been tr uthfulabo ut the ci gar ett es they w er e s el l i ng. I n f act, not o nl y d o th e p l a i n t i ff s n o tma k e th e s e a l l e g a t i o n s , b ut the p l a i nt i ff s a l s o e xp l i c i t l y di s a v o w a nys uc h a l l e g ati ons, cl aim in g that they a re enti re l y unneces sar y t o supp or t thei r theo ryo funj ust e nri chm ent. In o ther wor ds, the pl aint i ff s as se r t th atthe i r unj us t en r i ch m en t cl ai m does notr equi re pro ofo fdecepti on, causa tion, o r ac tu alha r m wi thr eg ar d t o i ndi vi d ua l m embe r s o fthe pla i nti ffcl ass . A s w e stated abov e , for unj us t enrich m en t, “a p lai nt iff mus ta l l e g e tha tthe d efe nd a nth a s u nj us t l y r e t a i ne d a ben efi t to the p lai nt iff’ s d etrim en t, an d that de fend an t’s re tenti on o fthe ben efit vi ol ate s the fund am ental p rinci ple s o fj usti ce, equi ty, and go od cons ci ence . ” HPI H e a l t h C a re Servs. , 545 N
. E
. 2d at 678. The plaintiff s conte nd thati n or der t o show d etr i m ent, theydo not need to sho w thattheysuff er ed so m e l oss o r d am age s. S e e Rai n t r e e Hom e s, Inc. , 8 07N. E. 2d at4 45
. Thi s i s tr ue i n so m e unj ust e nri chm ent c ase s, l i ke R a int r e e H o m es , because unj us t enri chm ent doe s no t s eekto co m pensate a pl ai nti ff fo r loss o r dam age s s uffer ed but s eek s t o dis-N o. 10

- 2960 15

The fac ts ofthe R ai n tr ee Hom es c as e i l l us t ra t e thi s di s t i nc t i on. 3 There, the plai nti ff s w ere se ek in g the refund ofi m pact fees f or bui l di ng pe rm i t s unfai rl y r et ai ne d by the defen dant v ill a g e. R ain tree H om es, In c., 8 0 7N .E .2d at 44 2 . T h e p la in tiffs w ere n ot seek ing com p en sation f or an y loss they p erso na l ly suff e r e d b y no th a vi ng the fe e s , s uc h a s the m i s s e d o ppo rtu nities to u se the fee m on ey f or oth er inv estm en ts

— the y on ly w a n te d d isg o rg em en t o ft h e fe es . Id. at 44 5. In oth er w or d s, the am ount ofthe awar d s oughtby the pl ai nt i ff s was the defe nd ant’ s “unjustgain, rather than the plai nti ff s’ l oss . ” Id. g o r g e a be ne fi t th atthe de f en dan t unj us tl y r et ains . But 3 w hile a pl aint i ffne ed no t sh o w l o ss o r da m ag es , he m us t sh o w a de tr i m en t

— and, sig ni fi cantl y, a connecti o n b etwee n the de tr i m en t an d the de f en d an t’ s r et en ti on o fthe benefi t. HP I Heal th C a re Servic es , 54 5 N .E .2d 678 ( “a pla i nti ff m ust al l ege that the defe nd an t has unj ustl y re tai ned a benefi t to the pla i nti ff’ s detr i m ent”) ( emphas i s adde d)

. I n s o m e unj us t en r i ch m en t ca se s, the l o s s o r d a ma g e s s u ff e r e d b y a p l a i n t i ffmi g h tb e r e l ev an t to est abl i shi ng tha t there i s a detr i m ent. H er e, th e b en efit th at th e p lain tif f s se ek to rec ov er is th e re ve n u e fro m th e c iga re tt e s ale s, w h i l e t h e d et rim en t a lleg ed b y t h e p lain tiffs is th e v iola tio n of th eir l eg alr i g hta s co ns um ers to b e i nf o r m ed o fthe t r ue nature and ri sks o f t h e d efendants’ pro du cts. But si nce the pl ai nti ffs d i scl ai m any need to al l ege ei therper sonal damag es , dec ept i o n, o r r el i an ce wi th r eg ar d to a ny m embe r o fthe c l as s, i t i s di ffi cul t to s ee ho w the de f en d an ts ’ ret en ti on of th e re ve n u e p aid by a c on su m er is to tha t co ns um er ’ s det r i m en t. Acco r di ngt o the pl ain-16 N o. 10

- 2960 ti ff s, th e cl as s o f peo pl e wi th a va l i d unj us t e nr i ch m en t cl ai m would i ncl ud e the consum erwh o bought ci gar ett es and w as neveri nj ured i n any m anner by hi s purchas e. I t would i ncl ud e the co nsum erwh o w as sat i sfi ed by his cigarette p urc ha se an d plan n e d to cont inu e pu rch as i ngc i g ar et te s. I t woul d i nc l ude the c o ns um erwho w ou ld n ot h av e a c te d an y d iffer en tly h ad h e b e e n fu lly i nfo rm ed abo ut ci gar ett es, but bought them anyway r e g a r dl e s s o fthe de f e nd a nt s ’ mar k e t i ng . I two ul d inc l ud e th e co ns um erwho was no t dec ei ve d b y the mar k et i ng because he was per sonal l y a w ar e o fthe tru e n ature o f ci ga r e t t e s , b uts t i l l b o ughtc i g a r e t t e s de s pi t e the i r a ddi ctive and harm ful natu re

— o r e ve n be causeof i t. U nd er th e plaintiff s’ exp an sive theory, a ll of these con su m ers woul d ha ve a ca us e o f ac ti o n f o r unj us t enri ch m en t because thei r l ega l r i ght t o be info rm ed ofthe ri sks o f c i g a r e t t e s wa s v i o l a t e d. Bu t f or m any of these consum er s, th e d efendants’ re te n tio n ofthe ci gar ett e r eve nue i s not a detr i m ent t o them

— i t i s pos sibl e that m any of the co nsum er s hav e n o re g r e t s a b ou t t h eir p u rc h as es an d w ou ld w illing ly re peat the sa m e t ra nsacti on, d es p i te the v i ol ati on o f thei r l ega l r i ght t o be info rm ed abo ut the na tu re of ci garettes. Si nc e the se co n s u m e r s w ou ld h ave ac ted no d if

f er entl y had the defendants p ro perl y info rm ed them about the t rue nature o fci gar ett es, thei r tr ansfero f m oneyto the defe nd ants i n exch an ge f orci gar ett es w as no t to the i r de tr i m en t

— an d, a cc o r di ng l y, the de f en dants’ co nti nued r ete nti on o fthe m oneycannotbe to th eir d etrim en t either.N o. 10

- 2960 17

“A ction s f or restitut i o n ha v e for the ir p rim ary p u rp ose 4 taki ng f rom the def endan t and res tori ng to t h e p lai nti ffs om e- (co n tin u ed ...) This w oul d be a di ff er en t c as e ifther e was a gr eat er con nect i o n b etwee n the de f en dan ts ’ r et en ti o n o fthe ci gar ett e r evenue and a detr i m ent t o the pl ai nti ff s. Fo r exam ple , i fthe re venue was o btai ned i n a m an ner that c au sed i nj ury to the pl ai nti ff s, o r i fthe re venue was o bt aine d b y de ce i vingthe pl aint i ff s, o r e ven ifthe re venue was o btai ned by a n i nadvert ent m i sr epresenta ti on r el i ed upon by the pl ai nti ff s, th e d efendants’ r et en ti o n o fthe reve nue mightc o nc ei vabl y b e to the pl a i nt i ff s ’ de t r i men t
. Bu tthe s e a l l e g a t i o ns h a v e b een ex p li citly d isclai m ed b y the p lai nt iffs. U nd er thes e circum sta nces, it w oul d not be unj ust f ora m anufa cture r to re tai n the m oneypai d by a co nsum erf ora product w hen thi s co nsum erwas not decei ved, would not have ac te d an y di ff er en tl y ha d he k no wn th e tr uth ab o ut the product, was not hurt b y the pro du ct, an d w as sat i sfi ed wi thth e p r o d u c ta n d p l a n n e d t o c o n t i n u e p u r c h a s i ng the s am e pr oduct i n the future

. I n shor t, the re tenti on o fth i s c o n s u me r ’ s mo n e y i s n o td e t r i me n t a l t o h i m. T h e b eh av ior a lleg ed by th e p lain t i f f s , na m ely , th eir cl ai m tha t th e defen dan ts ha d a conc er te d pl ant o i nt en ti o na l l y mis l ea d c o ns um er s an d c oncea l the t r uth abo ut thei r ci gar ett es, i s i nsuffi ci ent t o supp or t a cause o f acti on f orunj ust e nri chm ent. U nj u st enri chm ent i s no t a m ode o fim p osing punit i ve dam age s; i t i s a m eans of re cove ri ng so m ethi ng tha t the defendant i s no t e nti tl ed to bu t is unfai rl y pos ses si ng to the pla i nti ff’ s detr i m ent. 418 N o. 10

- 2960

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 thi ng t o whic h the pl ai nt i ff i s en t i t l ed.

. . . [ A] c t i ons of res t i t utionar e notpuni t i ve. ” Re s t at em en t( Thi rd) ofRes t i t ut i on and U nju st E n ri c h m e n t § 4 9 , re p o rt er ’s no te to cm t. a (20 1 1 ).

“ D isg o rg em en t o f w ro n g fu l g a in is n o t a p u n i t i v e r em ed y . . . . Th e r a t i on a l e o fpu ni t i ve o r e x e m pl a r y da m a ge s is i nd e pe nd e nt o fthe l a w ofunj us te nr i c hme nt
. ” Re s t a t e m e nt( Th i r d) o f R es tit u tio n an d U nju st E n ri ch m en t § 51 , cm t. k (20 1 1 ). As di s c us s ed a t o ral a rg um en t, wer e we t o a c c eptthe pl ai n- 5 t i ff s ’ the or y ofthe c as e, i twoul d have s i gni fi c anti m pl i c at i ons f or our c urrentl eg al s ys t em . Al l the r eve nue obt ai ne d by a m alfeasan t com p an y fro m selli ng a d an g ero u s pr od u ct w ou ld be di s gor ge d and dist ribut ed a m ong al l pur c has er s ofthe prod uct according to the ex penses i ncurred by eac h pu rchas er. Th e “ de e p p oc ke t s ” o fthe m alf eas a ntc ompa ny wou l d b e em ptie d, with l it tl e l eft t o com pen sa te those wh o w ere ac t ual l y i nj ur ed by the pr oduc t
. Thi s c our s e appe ar s t o us unwis e, t o sa y the l ea s t
. Ator al ar gum en t, c ouns el f or the plaint iff s sug gest ed that a court in e quity c ould ho ld back suffic ie nt fu n ds to t ake care ofthos e with pers onal- inj ury claim s; w e susp ect this w ou ld b e d ifficu lt to succ essfully im p le m en t in p ra ct ic e. A nd we hol d that the m er e v i ol ati on o fa consum er ’ s l ega l r i g htt o kno w ab o uta pr o duct ’ s r i sk s, wi th o utany th i ng m or e, cannotsupport a cl ai m thatthe m anufa cture r unj ustl y r eta i ned the r eve nue f ro m the product’ s s al e t o the c onsum er ’ s detr i m ent. 5 F i na l l y, the pl aint i ff s ha ve a sk ed us t o c er ti fy t o the I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t the questi on o fwh etherunj ust enri chm ent c an be an i nd ependent cau se ofact i on sep arate from an u nd erlyi ng tort, cont ract, or statu t o ryN o. 10

- 2960 19

The p lai nti ff s als o app eal two ot h er r el ated i ss ues, but they 6 ar e re s ol ved i n l i ghtofour r ul i ng. I n pa rtic ul ar, our r ul i ng (co n tin u ed ...) cl ai m . The mos t i m po r ta nt c o ns i der at i o n gui di ngo ur d e c i s i o n t o c e r t i fy a q u e s t i o n t o th e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me Cou r t “i s wheth erthe r ev i ewi ngc o ur t fi nds i ts el fg en ui nel y uncer tai n abo ut a questi on o fst at e law thati s v i tal to a cor re ct di sposi ti on o fthe case . ” StateFarm M ut. A uto. Ins. Co
. v. Pa te, 27 5 F
. 3d 666, 67 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( i nt erna l quo ta ti o n o m i tt ed)

. S i nc e th e que st i on ab o ut unj ust e nri chm en t bei ng an i nd ependent cause ofact i on i s no t vital t o the di spo si ti o n o fthe c as e, the r e i s no need f orcer ti fi c at i on

— r e g a r d l e s s o fth e a n s we r, we concl ud e that the pl ai nti ff s hav e no t s uffi ci entl y a l l ege d a cause o fact i on f orunj ust e nri chm ent. I n thei r re ply, the pl ai nti ff s s ugges t the ce rt i fi cati on ofa seco nd questi o n: whati s nee ded to e st ab l i shthe “ det r i m en t” e l ement of a n u nj u st en ric h m en t c laim . I n t h e c on te x t o f th is c as e, Illino is l aw on u nj u st en ric h m en t is s u f f icie n tly c lea r. C er tific at ion is n ot n ec es sa r y. See id
. a t6 7 2 ( “ At som e l eve l ther e i s uncer tainty i n eve ryappli cati on o f sta te l aw . There i s a l w ays a chance that a st ate su pr eme c o urt, i fi t ha d the s ame c as e be f o r e i t, might deci de the case di ff er entl y. T hi s e ver - prese nt poss ibi l i ty is not suffici en t to w arran t certifi cation
. ”). I n sum , w e c onclude thatthe pla i nti ff s’ al l ega ti ons of unj ust e nri chm ent a re i nsuffic ien t t o sta te a cl ai m f or w h i c h relie f ca n be gra n te d . Th e d ist ric t c ou rtco rre c tly di smi ss ed the pl aint i ff s’ F o ur thAm en ded Compl aint and enter ed j ud gm ent forthe defe nd ants. 620 N o. 10

- 2960

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 6 gives us re ason to affir m the dist ri ctcourt’ s grant ofs um m ary j udgm en tonthe i ndi vi dual c l ai m s o f Rit a Bur ke i n the Thi rd Am en ded Com pl ai ntan d t he di s t ri c t c our t ’ s den i al of c l a s s c e r t i fi c a t i o n o n th e “ l i g h t s ” c l a i m.

8- 25- 11 I I I
. Concl usi on T he di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t er r b y no t r emandi ngthe case to st ate co urt. N ordi d the di str i ct c ourter r by r e fus i ngt o e xt e nd the “ l i ght s ” c l a s s t o a ddi t i o na l b r a nd s besi des M ar lbor o Lights. But m osti m port antl y, w e a gr ee wi th th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tth a tth e u nj u s te n r i c h me n tc l a i m, as alleged by the pl ai nti ff s, i s no t v i abl e: a vi ol ati on o f th e con su m er’s legal right to kn ow abou t a p rod uc t’s ri sks , witho ut anythi ng m ore, c annot supp or t a n unj ust en richm en t clai m against th e prod uc t’s m an ufac tu rer. W e A FFIRM .