Source: https://edelson.com/inside-the-firm/issues-and-appeals/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 07:09:44+00:00

Document:
Led by partners Ryan D. Andrews and Roger Perlstadt, our Issues and Appeals Group routinely litigates cases of first impression in state and federal courts nationwide. The Issues and Appeals Group has won significant victories, including in several federal appellate courts and the United States Supreme Court. These decisions have created favorable law in numerous areas—including common law privacy and nearly all of its statutory variants—fundamentally changing how entire industries operate.
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016). In Spokeo, the Court rejected the argument that individuals must allege “real world” harm to have standing to sue in federal court; instead the court recognized that “intangible” harms and even the “risk of future harm” can establish standing. Commentators have called Spokeo one of the most important consumer privacy cases to come before the Supreme Court in recent times.
Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc., 886 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2018). In a groundbreaking victory against one of the largest gambling companies in the world, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s holding that Churchill Downs virtual casino app was not illegal, finding that the app’s virtual chips constituted “things of value” under the anti-gambling law.
Birchmeier v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 896 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2018). The Seventh Circuit affirmed our landmark $76 million TCPA settlement resulting from illegal robocalls offering a free cruise. By denying a host of different appeals, the court clarified that a common argument regarding the award of fees made by defendants and objectors is “unproductive” and that professional objectors (who do not add even marginal value to a settlement) are not entitled to compensation.
Beaton v. SpeedyPC Software, 907 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir. 2018). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s order granting class certification on a nationwide class and Illinois subclass of software purchasers, recognizing that “[c]onsumer class actions are a crucial deterrent against the proliferation of bogus products whose sticker price is dwarfed by a court filing fee.” Id. The decision also includes consumer-friendly rulings on a host of commonly-occurring issues in class action practice, from amended class definitions, to consideration of expert witness testimony, to the propriety of resolving individual issues though a claims process after judgment.
Warciak v. Subway Restaurants, Inc., 880 F.3d 870 (7th Cir. 2018). Reversing an order compelling arbitration of a spam text message marketing class action, the Seventh Circuit held that Subway could not enforce an arbitration agreement in a wireless carrier’s terms of service that neither party had signed.
Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F. 3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009). In a case of first impression, the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment to defendant finding both that a text message is a “call” and that dialing equipment need only have the “capacity” to be an autodialer under the TCPA.
Resnick v. AvMed, Inc., 693 F. 3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2012). In a medical data breach class action, the Court reversed dismissal and adopted plaintiff’s novel “overpayment” theory of damages.
Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 673 F. 3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff alleged that the bank wrongfully denied her a loan modification guaranteed to her through the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”). On appeal, the Court reversed dismissal of plaintiff’s claims as preempted by the HAMP and confirmed that plaintiffs could raise contract claims based on certain violations of the HAMP program guidelines.
Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Blagojevich, 638 F.3d 519, 523 (7th Cir. 2011), reh’g en banc granted in part, opinion vacated in part on other grounds sub nom. Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Balmoral Racing Club, Inc., 649 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2011), and on reh’g sub nom. Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Balmoral Racing Club, Inc., 651 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2011). We represented former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich pro bono. On appeal we secured legislative immunity for the former governor from civil RICO and other claims related to a “pay-to-play” scheme brought by a group riverboat casinos.
Gubala v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 846 F. 3d 909 (7th Cir. 2017). Authored amicus brief on Article III standing and privacy issues followed and referenced favorably by the Court.
Duncan v. FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc., 2019 IL App (1st) 180857. In an important victory for consumers, the Illinois Appellate Court held that plaintiffs need not allege anything beyond a statutory violation in order to have standing to bring suit in Illinois courts. In so holding, the court reiterated the fundamental principle that state courts are not bound by federal rules of standing, even in cases involving federal statutes.
Klaudia Sekura v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2018 IL App (1st) 180175. The Illinois Appellate Court held that Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act does not require an addition harm other than the violation of a person’s right to privacy in personal biometric data.
Johnson-Morris v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 194 F. Supp. 3d 757 (N.D. Ill. 2016). The court denied motion to dismiss claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act involving complex issues of legal tolling and statutory interpretation.
Greene v. Mizuho Bank Ltd., — F. Supp. 3d —, 2016 WL 4493451 (N.D. Ill. Aug, 26, 2016). The court concluded that claim was stated against Mizuho for fraud and tortious interference with contract related to its actions towards the Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange.
Aranda v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 179 F. Supp. 3d 817 (N.D. Ill. 2016). Partial summary judgement was won, denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment in full, and denying motion to decertify class based on Spokeo.
Mocek v. Allsaints USA Ltd., 220 F.3d 910 (N.D. Ill. 2016). In a precedent-setting opinion, the court rejected the defense bar strategy of removing class actions to federal court and then moving to dismiss for lack of Article III standing.
Rose & Stratton v. National Collegiate Athletic Association & Big Ten Conference, —F. Supp. 3d—, 2018 WL 4679579 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2018): The court refused to dismiss claims that the NCAA and Big Ten fraudulently concealed the risks of concussive and subconcussive impacts from college football players at Purdue University, and made key rulings on statute of limitations issues.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.