No. 5-99-0830 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ... - Appellate.net
No. 5-99-0830 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ... - Appellate.net
No. 5-99-0830 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ... - Appellate.net
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
overruled the considered judgments of numerous state legislatures and regulators as to how<br />
the interests of consumers in their states are best protected.<br />
Because invoking state consumer fraud laws requires different procedures, different<br />
substantive proof and different remedies for class members from each state, courts routinely<br />
refuse to certify nationwide consumer fraud class actions. See, e.g., Castano v. American<br />
Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 741 (5th Cir. 1<strong>99</strong>6) (“In a multi-state class action, variations in<br />
state law may swamp any common issues and defeat predominance”); Tylka, 178 F.R.D. at<br />
498; Fisher v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 181 F.R.D. 365, 371-72 (N.D. Ill. 1<strong>99</strong>8). 32/ Indeed,<br />
the Fourth District recently upheld an order denying certification of a nationwide class<br />
alleging consumer fraud violations on the ground that variations in state consumer fraud<br />
laws created so many individual issues of fact and law that a nationwide class could not be<br />
certified. See Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 311 Ill.App.3d 886, 726 N.E.2d at 61-62. That<br />
decision was undoubtedly correct: merely figuring out what rules would apply to class<br />
members in each state would be a complex undertaking. Actually trying a nationwide<br />
consumer fraud case under a complex web of differing procedures and legal rules would be<br />
an impossible task.<br />
Second, the circuit court erred as a matter of law in concluding that predominance<br />
could be manufactured by the simple expedient of applying ICFA to all claims of all class<br />
members regardless of where the deception allegedly occurred. In Oliveira, plaintiffs tried<br />
32/<br />
See also Dhamer v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 183 F.R.D. 520, 532-34 (N.D. Ill.<br />
1<strong>99</strong>8); In re Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Premium Litig., 183 F.R.D. 217, 222-23 (W.D.<br />
Mich. 1<strong>99</strong>8); Clement v. American Honda Fin. Corp., 176 F.R.D. 15, 23 & nn.10-12 (D.<br />
Conn. 1<strong>99</strong>7); In re Stucco Litig., 175 F.R.D. 210, 216 (E.D.N.C. 1<strong>99</strong>7).<br />
-62-