The Honor able S andr a Day O’ Conno r, As s oc i at e J us t i c e of  the Uni t ed St at es Supr em e Cour t ( Ret
. ) , s i t t i ng b y des i gna t i on p u rs u a n t to 28 U .S.C . § 2 9 4 (a ).



## 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. 09

- 3619 Q UI NT EN E. S PIVEY, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. A DAPTIVE M ARKE T I NG LLC , D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 3:07- CV-00779

—Mi ch ael J . Reagan, Judge .
A RG UE D M AY 18, 2010

— D ECIDED S EP TE MBE R 20, 2010

B efore O’C ON NO R, A ss ociateJust ice, a nd K ANN E a nd  R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . O ’C ON NO R, A ssoc ia t e Ju s tice ( Ret. )
. Qui nten E. S pive y chal l enges the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt of s u m m ary j ud gm en t against him on his claim s against A d ap tive M ar-2 N o. 09

- 3619 ket i ng forbr each o fcon tract and unj ust e nri chm ent. B ec au se w e fin d th at n o re as on ab le jur y c ou ld f i n d in f avo r ofS piv ey , w e a ffi rm the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct cour t.

I A p p ella n t Sp ive y c alle d a te l e m ar ke tin g n u m b er in Jan u ar y 2 00 3 a n d o rd er ed an A tk in s d ietp ro d u c t. T h is di spu te ar i se s fr o m th e r es t o ftha t te l eph o ne c o nv er sa ti o n.
A. A d ap tiv e h as p ro d u c ed a p a r t i a l rec or d in g of w h at it al l eg es i s th e co nv er sa ti o n b etwee n th e te l emar k et era nd Appel l an t. Acco r di ngt o the di st r i ctc o ur t, the r ec o r di ng i s a s fol l ows: T elem arketer: Th an k you for your ord er. W e’re sendi ng y ou a ri sk fre e 3 0- day m em ber shi p to H om eW or ks, offer i ng hund re ds of dol l ar s in savings at sto re s l i ke the Hom e Dep ot, K-M ar t, Li nens & T h in gs an d m an y m or e. A fte r 30 d ay s, t h e s er vic e is extended to a full yea r f or j ust $8. 00 per m on th , j ust $96. 00 annually. Bi l l ed i n advance a s Hom eW or ks w ith th e c re d it c ar d you are u sin g t o d a y . Y ou w ill be c harg ed an a n n u al fee at the e nd o fyo ur 3 0- day t r i a l p e r i o d a n d a t th e b e g i n n i n g o f e a c h ne w me mbe r sh i p y ea r . I fy o u w an t t o c an ce l, s i m pl y c al lthe tol l

- fre e n u m b erthatappears i n yo ur k i t in the fi rs t 30 days a nd yo u w i l lnotbe bi l l ed. I fyo u don’tsa veN o. 09

- 3619 3 hundr eds o fdo l l ar s i n y o urfi r st year, j us t ca l la nd y o u’ l l g e ta fu l lr e fu n d

. S o l o o kf o ry o u rk i ti n y o ur m ai li s that o kay ? M al e: Okay. Spi vey v . Adapt i veM ktg. , LL C, 660 F
. S up p. 2d 94 0, 94 3- 44 ( S
. D. I l l

. 2 00 9)
. Adapt i ve a l l eg es tha t th e m al e i n the conve rs ati on wa s Sp i vey . S pive y’ s cr edi t ca rd st ate
m en t s s h ow a c h ar ge of $9 6.0 0 b y H om eW or ks in M ar c h 20 03 , a ch ar ge of $1 49 .95 by H o m e W o rk s d u e in J an ua r y 2 00 4, c ha r g es o f$ 19 9. 95 i n J an ua r y 2 00 5 an d Janu ary 2006 , and an ad d iti ona l ch arg e o f an un d eterm i n e d am ou n t in Jan u ar y 2 00 7. See Appe l l e e ’ s R e s p. App
. ( RA) at6 5- 69
. Af te rS pi ve y c al l ed to pr o te stthe Jan uary20 07 charg e, $1 79. 70 w as re fund ed. Pl

. ’ s Res p. to D ef.’s Firs t Se t o f Int er ro gs . at 3 , A p p ella n t’s A p p en d ix [ here i nafterA pp . ] at56
. I n hi s fi r s ta men de d c o mpl a i nt, S pi v e y c l a i med tha t he di d no t r ec al lpa r ti ci pat i ngi n the c o nv er sa ti o n a nd coul d no t c on firm thatthe voi ce in the re cor ding w as hi s. In l ate r fi l i ngs, S pive y a dm i tte d that the m ale voi ce i n the r ec o r d ing sounds l i k e hi s vo i ce wi tha c o l d, b ut m ai ntai ned that the s hort l ength ofthe m al e’ s s tat em en t pr ev ent ed hi m fr o m c o nc l us i ve l y de te r m i ni ng w h et h er th e v oic e w as h is. H e c on ti n u ed to m ain ta in th at he did not reca ll taking part in the con versat ion. Pl.’ s Resp. to Def

. ’ s F i rs t S et ofReqs. f orA dm i s. at1, RA at70
. The com pla i nt al so aver s that Spi vey did not re cei ve a “we l co m e k i t” from A dapt i ve , a s di sc us se d i n the conve rs ati on, o r, thati fa w el com e k i t was d elivere d to hi s h om e, it w as desi gned to l oo k l i ke j unk m ai lso that4 N o. 09

- 3619 h e d isc ar d ed it w ith ou t o p e n in g it. Ina lat er d ep os iti on, A pp el l ee’ s a tto rney s e xtensi vel y quest i oned S p i vey ab o u tth e we l c o me k i t, a s d e t a i l e d b e l o w: Q. Cany o u c o nfi r m o rde ny the wel co m e k i t an d the ter m s a nd co nd i ti ons conta i ned i n t h er e that y ou tal k about i n the othe r part ofyo ur Com pla i nt? A. CanIc o nfi r m o rde ny

— Q
. T h a ty o u r e c e i v e d th e m. A
. I ha ve n o r e c or d of re c eiv in g t h em . N o kn ow le d g e o fr e c e i v i n gth e m. Q. M y qu e s t i o n i s , c a n y o u c o nfi r m o rde nytha ty ou re c eiv ed th em ?
. . . A. W ha tI ca n c o nfi r m i s th a tI do no tha v e a fi l e tha t c on ta in s a n yt h in g f ro m A d ap tiv e, an d th at it is m y g en er alpr ac ti ce t o o pena nd r ev i ew a l lthe m ailthat com es to m y hom e. T ha t’s

— that’s all Ic a n c o n fi r m.

. . . . Q
. C an yo u te ll m e Id id n otrec eiv e t h at p iec e o f m ail? A
. I ca n te ll you I d id n otrec eiv e t h at p iec e o f m ail. Q. Okay. I t di dn ’ t show up at yourhouse , and yo u thre w i t a w ay? A
. Ido notbel i eve that I did o r w oul d have done that. Q. O k ay . I t’ s y o urt es ti m o ny a nd y o u’ r e swe ar i ng und ero ath

— you ar e t aking the o ath s er i ousl y, Ibel i eve that

. Ij ust want to m ak e sure Ikno w exactly what yo u’r e s aying. You’ re te l l i ng m e y ouN o. 09

- 3619 5 d id n ot receive it. You ’re n o t te ll ing m e Idon ’t r ememberr ec ei vingi t. Tho se a r e two di ffer en t thing s , i n my mi nd

. A. Ido n’ t k no w i fIc an a ns werthe que st i o n a ny bett er th a n th at. Ihav e no recollection, no reco rd ofr ecei vi ng i t. Dep
. o fQuinte n E. Spi vey, J uly 9, 2009 at29

- 31 [ here i nafter Spi vey Dep
. ] , A pp . at 43 0-3 2; s e eal s o Spi veyDep. at15 , RA at75 ; S pive y Dep. at36 , RA at80
. I n r e s p o n s e to S pi v e y ’ s t e s t i mo n yab o u tth e w e l c o me kit, A d ap tiv e p ro ffer ed ev id en c e a s t o its st an d ar d bu sin e s s p ractices. In an affidav it and de p ositi on, A d ap tive’s Di r e c t o ro fAffi ni t y Mar k e t i ng, J ud y Mul l e r, e xp l a i ned tha ti n i ns t a nc e s l i k e thi s o ne wh e r e Ada pt i v e u s es a thi rd party to m ar ket A dap ti ve’ s products, the thi rd party so licit s c u st om er s, b u t A d ap ti v e r em ain s re sp on sib le f orfulfi l l m ent, i ncl ud i ng shi pm ent o fm em ber shi p m ate
ri al s a nd pro vi si on o f custo m erse rv i ce. M ull erA ff

. at2, App. a t 51 4. S pec i fi ca l l y, M ul l ert es ti fi ed th atful fi l l m en t i ncl ud es sendi ng the custo m era “se lf

- m ai l er, 11 by17 p os tc ar d es s e n t ially ,” th at co n ta in s a list o f “b en efit p ro vi d er s, a m em b er sh ip ca rd w ith a m em b er sh ip ID num ber, te rm s a nd co n dit i ons, and an 80 0 num berto acces s the p rogr am , as wellas a w ebsi te U RL to acc ess the pr ogr am . ” Sp ivey, 6 60 F
. S upp. 2 d a t 9 47( quo ting M u ller D ep .). M u ller fu rt h er te st ified th at aft er a sa le i s l oaded i nto A d ap ti ve’ s database , the fulfi l l m ent m ate
ri al s a re m ai l ed and usual l y r eac h t h e cust om eri n sev en to t e n b u sin es s d ay s. Id. S he a l s o e xp l a i ne d tha tAda pti ve’ s “ cor p orate pol i cy” i s t o send re new alnot i ces f or an n u al b illing s. Id.6 N o. 09

- 3619 A dap ti ve provi ded a copy o fthe M em b er sh i p A gr eem ent that w as effecti ve f or the peri od i n w hi c h S pive y a l l e g e dl y j o i ne d the Ho meWo r k s p r o g r a m a nd tha tAda pti ve a l l eg es i t m ai l ed to S pi vey. In r el ev an t par t, the A gr eem ent pr ovi des: T E R M S O F M E M B E R S H IP A N D M E M B E R S H IP AGRE E ME NT
. . . UPO N ENRO LLM EN T, Y OU A G R E E TO TH E SE TE R M S A N D CO N D I T I O N S. W E U R G E Y O U T O R E A D T H IS M E M B E R SH IP AG REEM EN T CAREFULLY A N D I F YO U H AVE AN Y QU ES TI ON S, CA LL OU R CU S TOM ER S ERVI CE RE PRESENTA TI VES AT THE NU M BERS LI S TE D O N YO UR MEMBERS HI P CARD
.

. . . . 2. M em b ers h ip T erm . Your M em bersh ip i s e ffecti ve for a p eriod of tw elve m ont hs f ollow in g the m em bersh ip en ro llm en t d at e u n d e r th e a n n u al m em b er sh ip p lan or for th e pe riod ag re ed u p on u n d er th e in s t a llm en t m em b er sh ip p lan au th or ize d by Y ou . . . . 3 . Re ne wa l o fMemb e r s hi p. Un l e s s Y o u n o t i fy Us th atYo u wi sh to t er m i na te thi s Agr ee m en t an d ca nc elYo urM embe r sh i p b y f o l l o wi ngthe i ns truct i o ns b elo w , you r M em b er sh ip w ill be re n ew ed au to m at ic a l l y a n d Y o u wi l l b e c h a r g e d th e th e n - e ffe c t i v e Me mber shi p Fee wh i ch w i l lappear on y our sta tem ent. 4. Paym ent ofEnro l l m ent Fee. The pa y m en t o fy o ur tr i alper i od and Enrol lm en t F ee . . . i s m ade auto

m at ical l y b y a di re ct c harg e( s) to the bi l l i ng so urce au th o r i ze d by Yo u i n ac co r dan ce wi th th e pay m en tN o. 09

- 3619 7 ter m s t o w hi ch You ag re ed. W e r ese rv e the r i ght to i ncre as e o r decrea se the Enro l l m ent F ee f orea ch re new alM em ber shi p Term effecti ve up on r enewal o fyour M embe r sh i p. Underthe monthl y b i l l i ng p l a n, We ma y, a to u rd i s c r e t i o n, i n c r e a s e t he m onthl y Enro l l m ent Fee once i n any tw el ve m onth p er iod n otm or e t h an $2 .00 p er m on th

. . . .

. . . . 7. E n tire A gre em en t. This A gr eem ent contains al lo f the Ter m s o fM em ber shi p a n d n o re prese ntati ons, i nduc ement s, p ro m i se s o ra g r ee m en ts c o nc erni ng th e M embe r sh i p no t i nc l ude d i n thi s Agr ee m en t sh all b e e ffec tiv e o r en for c ea b le. .

. .

. . . . 9. T E R M IN A T I O N O F M E M B E R S H IP . Y O U MAY T E R MI NA T E T HI S AG R E E ME NT AN D Y O URME MB E R S HI P AT A NY T I ME B Y C AL L I NG USAT T HE T O L L FR E E N U M B E RO N Y O U RM E M B E R SH IP C AR D O RB Y NO T I F Y I NG USI N WR I T I NG AT MEMB E R S HI P S E R V I C E S, P
. O
. B O X 2 4 3 1 1 , O MAHA, NEBR AS KA. Y OUR CANCELLA TI ON WI LL BE EF F EC TI VE P RO M PT LY UPO N THE RE CEI PT OF YO U R CA N CE LL A TI ON N OT I CE
. . . . Doc. N o. 12 2- 2, VT RU 01 697- 0169 8. Sp ivey, 66 0 F
. S up p. 2d a t 94 4- 45. On these f acts and as d e t ail ed below , the d istri ct cou rt grante d A d ap tive’s m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent o n al lcl ai m s.8 N o. 09

- 3619 B. The dis tr i ct c ourtfi rs t a sse sse d Spi vey ’ s c laim that Ad apt i ve b r ea ch ed an o r alc o nt r ac t f o r m ed dur i ngthe tel em ar ket i ng ca l lbychar gi ng an annual fee i n subsequ e n t y e a r s h i g h e r th a n th e $ 9 6 a n n u a l c h a r g e m en ti oned i n t h e t el em ar ket i ng ca l l

. In re sponse, A dap ti ve p ointed to the W ritten A greem en t, w hich ex p ressly perm its in creas es to the ann ua l en roll m en t fee. To d eterm i ne wh etherA dap ti ve had bre ached an o ra lco ntra ct in ch arging m ore th an $96 per year, th e d istri ct c ou rt had to exam i ne w h et h er ther e was an o ra lco ntra ct that cou ld ha ve been breac he d

. C iti ng I ll inois law , t h e c o u rt note d t h at Spi vey, as the partyse eking r el i effro m an alle ge d bre ach, bea rs the burden ofes tabl i shi ng bo th th e e x ist en c e a n d te rm s o f th e o ra l ag re em en t. Id. at945. The dis tr i ct cou rtnot ed Spi vey ’ s “ re ser vati ons” as to w hether t h e ca l lhad i n f act occur re d, but expl ai ned that “[ i]n or der forS pive y’ s br each o fco ntra ct c l ai m to go f or w ar d, the Cour t m ust a ssum e that the co nver sati on, as m em or i al i zed abo ve, o ccurred and that Spi vey accepte d a tr i alm em ber shi p i n H om eW or ks. I fS pive y m ai ntai ns o ther w i se, then ther e was no c on tr act to bre ach, and hi s cl ai m m ust b e d i sm i sse d.” Id. a t 94 6. The cour t a ccor dingl y a ssum ed that the c on ver sat i on had occur re d and res ult ed i n the f ol l owing ter m s: Sp ivey a g r e ed to accep t a ri sk-free 30-day m em bershi p i n H om eW or ks, wh ich , afterthe 30- day tr i al peri od w oul d be extended to a fullye arf or$8

. 00 per m onth, o r $96.00 annually. S pive y would be char ged ana nnua lfee a t th e en d o f th e tr i alpe r i o d a nd a t th eN o. 09

- 3619 9 beginning ofea ch m em ber shi p year . S pive y w oul d not be c ha r g ed i fhe c an ce l ed wi th i n the t r i alpe r i o d a nd w ou ld rec eiv e a fu ll r e fu n d if h e c an c ele d w ith in th e firs t y ea r. A kit w ou ld be m aile d to Sp ive y. Id. The cour t then t u rned to the questi on o fwh ether S pi ve y was b o und b y the t er m s o fthe wri tt ena g r ee m en t that A dap ti ve al l ege dlym ai l ed as part ofi ts w el com e k i t. I n wei g hi ngS pi ve y ’ s te st i m o ny abo utwhethe rhe r ec ei ve d the a g r ee m en t ag ains t Ad apt ive ’ s te st i m o ny ab o u t i t s b u s i n e s s p r a c t i c e s r e g a r d i n g ma i l i n g we l c o me kit s, th e d ist ric t cou rt re lied on p re c ed en ts fr o m t h is c irc u it h old in g t h at “[w ]h er e a let te r is p ro p er ly ad d re ss ed an d m aile d , th er e is ‘ a p r es u m p tio n th at it re ac h ed its d es tin at io n i n u su al t im e a n d w as ac tu ally re cei ved by the per son to w hom i t was address ed ,’ ” Boom e r v. AT& T Corp. , 309 F. 3d 404, 415 n.5 (7th Cir
. 20 02) ( quoti ng Hagn er v. U nited Sta tes , 2 85 U. S
. 4 27( 19 32 ) )
. The d i st ric t c ou rtrelie d on th e M u ller d ep os itio n as ev id en c e o f A d ap tiv e’s m ailin g p ra c tic es . Se eGodf r ey v . U nited Sta tes , 9 97F
. 2d 33 5, 3 38 ( 7th Cir. 1 99 3) ( ho l di ng that a pre sum pti on o f r ecei pt exi sts wh er e there i s “ proo f ofpro cedures f ol l owed i n the re gul ar course o fo perations w hich gi ve rise to a stron g i nferen ce t h a t t he [ corresp ond en ce] w as p rop erly ad d ressed and m ail ed ”). The d ep osi ti on co m bi ned w i th A dap ti ve’ s pre senta ti on ofS pive y’s a ccurat e ho m e a dd re ss provi ded to the tel em arket er, S pive y’ s e quivo caldeposi ti on r esponse s t o q u es tio n s a sk in g w h et h er h e d en ied rec eiv in g t h e w elcom e kit, and Spi vey ’ s f ai l ure to conte nd thathe di d not re cei ve the di et product he or dered i n the sam e t el e-10 N o. 09

- 3619 phone cal lto support a p re su m pti on that S pive y r ecei ved the w el com e k i t. T h e d is t r i c t co u rtth en relie d on tw o d ec isio n s o f th is c irc u it, ProCD , Inc . v. Ze i den berg, 86 F. 3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1 9 9 6 ) , a nd H i l l v. Gat e way 2000, Inc. , 10 5 F .3d 11 47 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 7) , t o c o nc l ude tha t S pi ve y was b o und by the ter m s o fthe w ri tte n agr eem ent bec au se A dap ti ve i nvi ted accepta nce byco nd uct

— i n this i ns ta nc e, i na ct i o n. The dist ri ct c ourte xplained, “By no t ca l l i ng the to l l

- fre e nu m ber in th e fi rst 30 d ays ( or even in th e fi rst y e a r)

— as a d v ised by the telem arketer andse t for th i n the agr eem en t

— S pi ve y a cc ept ed th e o ffer ed se r vi ces an d the te rm s a n d co n d i t i o n s u n d er w h ich th ey w er e o ffer ed .” Spi vey , 660 F
. S up p. 2 d a t9 4 9
. S pi v e y, the c o ur th e l d, had a “cl earm echanism and re aso nabl e o pp or tuni ty to rej ec t” th e s er vic e, an d h av in g fa iled to d o s o, h e “ is bound by the w ri tte n ter m s pro vi ded afterthe tr ansacti on. ” Id. The cour t a l so note d that the te rm s o fthe all ege d or al agr eem ent a nd the w ri tte n agr eem ent w er e no t co ntra
dict or y b ecause the or al a gr eem ent di d not s ugges t that th e ann ua l p r ic e w ou ld be forever static at $96 p er year. The or al agr eem ent’ s s i l ence on future i ncre ase s o r decre ase s, the cour t hel d, m eant that the wri tte n agr eem ent’ s provi si on al l owing f or the i ncre ase of the a nnual c h ar ge d id n otco n tr ad ict th e o ra l ag re em en t. Id. at95 0. Bas ed o n i ts a na l y si s o fthe e xisten ce, a ppl i cabi l i ty, a nd sp ecifi c term s of th e w ritten agreem en t, th e d istri c t c o u rt h e l d t h at th er e w as n o ge n u in e is su e o f m at er ial fa c t in d ispute, and A dap ti ve w as enti tl ed to sum m ary j ud gm en t. Id. T he c o ur t, h o we v e r, a l s o p r o v i de d a s e c o nd ,N o. 09

- 3619 11 i nde pen den t th eo r y f o rdi smi ss i ngS pi ve y ’ s cl ai m s: the vol untarypaym ent doct rine. Pur su an t to the vo l unt ary pay m en t do ct r i ne , a c o m m o nlaw doc trine incorp orate d i n t o I ll inois l aw , “a plaintiff w ho vol untari l y pays m oney i n re ply to an i ncor re ct or i l l e g a lc l a i m o fr i g htc a nn o tr e c o v e rtha tp a y men tu nl ess he can show fr aud, coe rci on, or m i sta ke off act. ” Randazzo v . Ha r r i s B a n k P a l a t i n e, N. A. , 262 F.3d 663 , 666 (7th C ir. 2001 ) ( ci ti ng Sm ith v. P ri m e C ableof Chi. , 65 8 N
. E.2 d 1325, 1329

- 30 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 19 95) )
. The di str i ct c ou rt hel d that th e do ct r i ne a ppl i ed to thi s ca se b ec au se S pi ve y v o l untar i l y pai d cre ditcar d charg es f orH om eW or ks i n 200 3, 20 04, 2 00 5, a nd 2 00 6 an d di d no t ch al lenge any o fthe c h ar ge s w h en th ey ap p ea re d

. Spi vey, 66 0 F
. S up p. 2d at 951. The co urt rej ecte d Sp ive y’ s m i sta ke off act defe nse, w hi ch r est ed on the cl ai m that S p i veybel i eve d that hi s wi fe, a s ch o o lt ea ch er, h ad m ade the c ha r g es . The cou rt held Spivey “m ad e no effort to d iscover t h e natu re o fth e c h a r g e t o h i s c r e d i tc a r d a nd pai d i t‘ i n s i l e n c e . ’ As a r esul t, [h is cl ai m ] does notco m e withi n the ‘ m i sta ke off act’ exce pti on t o the v ol untarypaym ent doct rine. ” Id. Finally, as rel evan t to this ap p eal, the d istrict cou rt rej ecte d Spi vey ’ s unj ust e nri chm ent c l ai m bec ause such a cl ai m i s i m per m i ss ibl e w he re a c o nt r ac t g o ve r ns the relationsh ip betw e e n th e pa rties, and the volu nt ary p ay m en t d oc tr in e w ou ld p re c lu d e p ay m en t a n yw ay . Id. at 952. The dis tr i ct c ourtente re d sum m ar y j ud gm ent for Ada pt i v e o n a l lc o un t s , a nd S pi v e y a pp e a l e d.12 N o. 09

- 3619

Sp iv e y i n i t ially filed this suit as a cla ss action , b u t the d is- 1 tr ic t c ourt dis m is se d it befor e a c las s w as cer ti fie d. S ee S pivey, 660 F. Supp
. 2d at 952- 53. II The dist ri ct cour t’ s j uri sdic ti on i n thi s case ar ose fro m 28 U
. S. C. § 1 332( d)( 2) ( A ) , as am ended by the Cl ass Acti o n F ai r ne ss A cto f2 00 5, whi chr equi r es , a m o ng othe r thi ngs, di ver si ty ofci ti zenshi p am ong the par ti es. 1 Thi s co urt h as j ur i sdi ct i o n un der2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 29 1, a nd b e c a u s e th i s i s a di v e r s i t y c a s e , we a p p l y I l l i n o i s l a w. Eri eR. R. Co. v. Tom pki ns , 304 U
. S. 64 (1938). W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent deno vo , and w e m ust co nstr ue al lf acts and re aso nabl e i nfer en ce s i n the l i g htmos t f avorabl e to the n on -m ov in g p ar ty
. Goel ze rv. Sh e b oygan Cty. , 60 4 F. 3d 987, 99 2 (7 th C i r . 2 01 0). Su m m ar y jud gm en t is ap p ro p ria te “if th e p l e a d in gs , th e d isc ov er y a n d d isc los u re m at er ials o n fi l e, a nd a ny a ff idav i ts s ho w tha t th er e i s no g enui ne iss u e a s t o a n y m at er ial fa c t a n d th at th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to s um m ary j udg m en t as a matt ero fl aw. ” F ed. R. C iv. P . 56(c ); se e C el otex Corp. v. C atre tt, 477 U
. S. 317 (1986). A f actualdi spute i s “ m ate ri al ” o nl y i fthe disp u te ’s res

o l ut i o n mi ghtc ha ng e th e o ut co m e o fthe s ui t un d er the gov er ni ng l aw . S to kes v. B d. of Ed uc. of the City of Ch i. , 59 9 F.3 d 61 7, 61 9 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); se e A nd erson v. Li be rty Lobby, Inc. , 4 77U. S
. 2 42 , 2 48 ( 19 86 )
. And a f ac tu ali ss ue i s “ genui ne” o nl y “ i fthe evid en c e i s s uch that a r easo nabl e j ur y c o ul d r etur n a v er di ctf o rthe no nm o ving party
. ” Id. ; Sto k es , 59 9 F
. 3d at 619.N o. 09

- 3619 13 Spi veyar gues that the di str i ct c ourter re d: 1) i n presum i ng tha t S pive y r ecei ved the w ri tte n ter m s fro m A dap ti ve; 2) byfi nd i ng tha t the wri tte n agr eem ent g over n ed th e re lat ion sh ip be tw ee n th e p ar t i es ; an d 3) in applying the vo l untarypaym ent doct rine to barr eco very. B ecau se w e d ecid e this case un d er the v o lu n t ary pay m ent doct rine, we need not add re ss the di str i ct cour t’ s a l ternati ve hol dings o n the exi ste nce and i m pli cations of an ora l an d w ritten con tract. Th e volun tary pay m en t do ct r i ne pr ec l ude s S pi ve y fr o m r ec o upi ng hi s 2 003- 2006 p ay m ents to A dap ti ve und erany theo ry, a n d w e th e r e f o r e a ffi r m t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s g r a n to fs u mm ar y j ud gm ent forA dap ti ve.

III The vol untarypaym en t d oct rine has l ong been re cog n i z e d i n co m m on law an d ac c ep te d by th e Illino is cour ts w hose j uri sprudence we apply i n thi s di ver si ty acti on. The doctr i ne, st ate d succinct l y, m ai ntains that “[a ]b se n t fra u d , coe rc i o n o r m ist ak e o f fac t, m on ies p aid und era cl ai m o fr i ght t o paym ent b ut under a m i sta ke o fl a w a r e n o tr e c o v e r abl e. ” Randazzo , 26 2 F
. 3d at 668 ( quoti ng Sm ith v. P ri m e C ableof Chi. , 658 N
. E.2 d 1 325, 13 30 (Ill. A p p . 199 5)); s e ea l s o Ha r r i s v . C h a r t O ne, 8 41 N
. E.2 d 10 28 , 103 1 (Ill. A p p . 200 5) (“ It h as b ee n a u n ive rs ally re cogni zed r ule thatabs ent fra ud , duress , o r m i sta ke off act, m oneyvo l untari ly p aid o n a c l ai m o fr i ght t o th e pay m en t ca nno t be r ec o ve r ed o n the g r o und tha t th e cl ai m w as i l l ega l

. ”)
. The doctr i ne “appli es to any c ause of acti on wh i ch se eks to r eco vera paym ent o n a c l aim14 N o. 09

- 3619 of ri ght, w hether that cl ai m i s prem i sed on a contra ctual re l ati onshi p ora sta tutory obl i gat i on . . . . ” Id. The I l l i noi s co urts have expl ai ned that the r eas on f or the rule i s: qui te o bv i o us whena ppl i ed to a c as e o fpa y m en t o n a m er e demand o f m o ne y una cc o m pan i ed wi th a ny pow er o ra utho r i t y t o e nfo r c e s uc h de man d, e xc e pt b y a su it a t la w . In su c hca se , i f th e p ar ty w ou ld resi sta n unj us t demand, he mustdo s o a t th e th r es hol d. The p a r t i e s t r e a twi th e a c h o the ro n e qu a lt e r m s, an d i fl i ti g at i o n i s i nt en ded bythe o ne o fwho m the m oneyi s dem anded , i t s houl d precede pay m ent. W he n the pe r s o n mak i ng the pa y men t c a n o nly b e re ached by a pro ceedi ng atl aw , he is b ound to m ake hi s de fe ns e i n the fi r s t i ns t a nc e , a nd he c a nn o tpost
pone the l i ti gat i on bypayi ng the dem an d in s i l ence o ru n d e ra r e s e r v a t i o n o fr i g h tt o l i t i g a t e th e c l a i m, a nd a ft e r wa r d s ue t o r e c o v e rthe a mou ntp a i d. Sm ith , 6 5 8 N. E. 2 d a t1 3 3 0 ( qu o t i ng66 Am. J ur . 2 d Res t i t uti on & Im plie d C ontracts § 94 , at 1 03 5-3 6 (1 97 3)). A s t h is co ur t ex pl aine d i n Randazzo , the v o l unt ary pa y m en t doc tr i ne “e nsures thattho se w ho desi re to as ser t a l ega l ri ght do s o at the fi rs t pos sibl e o pp or tuni ty; thi s way, al li nter est ed parti es ar e a w ar e o fthatposi ti on and have the o pp or tuni ty to tai l orthei r ow n c onduct accor dingl y. ” Randazzo , 26 2 F
. 3d at 668. A da pt i v e r a i s e s the v o l un t a r y p a y men tdo c t r i ne a s an a ffi r mat i v e de fe ns e t o S pi v e y ’ s c l a i m. In r e s ponse, Sp ive y d oes notco ntestthathi s cr edi t ca rd st ate m ents re fl ecte d a char ge by H om eW or ks Pl us i n 200 3, 20 04,N o. 09

- 3619 15 2005 , and 200 6; nordoes he co ntestthathe m ade paym en ts to A d ap tiv e v ia h is c re d it c ar d co m p an y in thos e y ear s. A s th e d i str i ct c ourtnot ed, the charg es, ex em p li fi ed by the 2006 ch arge , w ere visible on Sp ivey’s s t a t e me n ta s H o me Wo r k s P l u s a n d p r o v i d e d a n a c c o mpanyi ng p h on e num berto cal labo ut thatspeci fi c char ge. Sp ivey, 66 0 F
. S up p. 2d at95 1. I n re sponse, Spi vey ass er ts that he pai d th e charg es und era m i sta ke off act

— a r eco gni zed exce pti on t o th e a p p lica b ility o f th e v olu n ta ry p ay m en t d oc tr in e. See Randazzo , 26 2 F
. 3d at 66 8. The m i sta ke Spi veyal l ege s, how eve r, i s no t o ne having to do with the acti ons of the Ap pel l ee. S pive y c l ai m s that h e “beli eve d that H om eW or ks Pl us w as a pro du ct that hi s wife , a schoo l tea cher, had purchased. ” Ap pel l ant’ s Br. at37
. A l though Spi veyi s ce rt ai n l y c or re ct that “ H om eW or ks Pl us” bear s a si m i l ar i ty to the “ hom ew or k” ofte n a ssigned by tea cher s, S pive y c annot ove rcom e th e v ol untarypaym ent defen se because he m ade an e rr oneo us as sum pti on f orf our yea rs thatcou ld h ave been eas i l y c l ar i fi ed, as it u lt im ately w as, by discu ssing th e ch arge w ith his w ife and m akinga cal lto the phone num berpro vi ded o n h is b ill. The r el ev an t f ac ts r eg ar di ng the b as i s f o ra nd mea ns to chal l enge the Hom eW or ks charg e w er e nei thero bsc u re d , n or in a c c es sib le. Gold s t e i n Oil Co. v. Cook Cty. , 50 9 N
. E
. 2d 538, 542 ( I ll

. A p p . C t. 1987 ) (rej ectin g p la intiff’s c l a i m th a t th e v o l u n t a r y p a y me n t d o c t r i n e wa s i na pp li cab le becau se “t h e f acts w ere not ob scu red nor w ere they i nacces sibl e a s pl ai nti ffcl ai m s” and i n f act the r el e-16 N o. 09

- 3619

v a n ti n f o r ma t i o n wa s a v a i l ab l e “ fr o m [ p l a i n t i ff’ s ] o wn c lien t” ); s e eal s o Randa zzo , 26 2 F
. 3d at 667 (e xplaini ng tha t th e vo l unt ary pa y m en t do ct r i ne “ ho l ds th ata pe r so n who vo l untari l y pa y s an o th erwi thful lkno wl edg e o fthe f a c t s wi l ln o tb e e nt i t l e d t o r e s t i t ut i o n” )
. As the di s t ri ct c o u r tn o t e d , th e c h a r g e b y A d a p t i v e p r o v i d e d th e n a me o fth e c h a r g e a s Ho me Wo r k s P l us

— th e nam e o fthe p ro d u c t d isc u ss ed in t h e t ele m ar ke tin g p h on e c all

— an d provi ded a tel ephone num bernext to the c harg e for c u st om er s t o c all. Sp ivey, 66 0 F
. S up p. 2d at95 1. I n the fi ve yea rs duri ng wh i ch H om eW or ks ch ar ges appe ar ed o n S pi ve y ’s cred i t ca r d b i l l s, “ he made no effo rt to d isc ov er th e na tu re of th e ch ar ge to h i s cr ed it car d and p ai d i t ‘ i n si l ence. ’ T o the e xtent that S pive y w as i gnor ant o fthe ch ar ges o n hi s cr edi t ca rd st ate m ent, it w as be c au se h e fa iled or re fu se d to ap p ris e h im se lf of th at kn ow led ge an d h e m u st be ar th e c on se q u en c es .” Id. at 9 5 1 -52 . A s t h e Illino is c ou rt s h av e e x p lain ed , “[I]t is no e xc ep tion to the v ol untary
- paym ent doct rine wh en th e p l a i n t i ff m ak es n o e ffor t t o a sc er ta inth e fa c tu al b as is of the [ charg e] but pays i t anyw ay. ” Harris , 84 1 N
. E.2 d at 10 32 ; see also Gold s t e i n Oil Co. , 50 9 N
. E.2 d at 542. W h er e, as h er e, “t h e p lain tiff’s lac k of k n ow led ge co u ld be a ttribut ed to i ts l ac ko fi nv es ti g at i o n int o the de fen dan t’ s cl ai m o f l i ab i l i ty an d th e ba si s upo n whi ch the defe nd ant was se eking the [ paym ent] , ” H arri s , 84 1 N .E .2d at10 32, the I l l i noi s co urts have r ej ecte d a m i sta ke off act cl ai m . S o do w e. We th e r e f o r e a ffi r m th e di s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s g r a n to fs u mm ary j udg m en t f o r A d ap ti ve o n the g r o und tha t th eN o. 09

- 3619 17

vo l unt ary pa y m en t do ct r i ne a p p l i es i n thi s ca se a nd precl ud es Spi veyfro m r eco ver i ng the paym ents to A dap ti ve.

IV Bec ause we ho l d tha t th e vo l unt ary pa y m en t do ct r i ne bars Sp ive y’ s cl ai m s, we need not and do not re ach the a l ternati ve contr act-base d gro und s fo r the di str i ct cour t’ s e ntryo fsum m ar y j ud gm ent fo r A dap ti ve. Fo r the r eas ons s tat ed abo ve, we affi rm the j ud gm ent o f the di str i ct c ourt
. A FFI RMED .

9- 20- 10