LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corporation

Filing 683

MOTION by Defendant Whirlpool Corporation for judgment As A Matter of Law On The Illinois Uniforn Deceptive Trade Practices Act Claim (Roche, Brian)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.
a subsidiary of LG Electronics, Inc.,
a Korean company
Plaintiff,
v.
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 08 C 242
Judge St. Eve
Magistrate Judge Mason

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF
LAW ON THE ILLINOIS UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT CLAIM
Whirlpool Corporation hereby moves the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 50 for the entry of judgment in Whirlpool’s favor on the Illinois Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act (“IUDTPA”) count. In support of this motion, Whirlpool states as follows
and submits the accompanying Memorandum in Support:
1.

The IUDTPA applies only to conduct that occurs “primarily and substantially” in

Illinois. Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 216 Ill.2d 100, 185-86, 835 N.E.2d 801, 85354 (Ill. 2005). LG has not established this necessary connection between Whirlpool’s challenged
conduct and Illinois.
2.

LG’s case was premised on the allegation that Whirlpool’s dryer does not create

or use steam. The Court determined that Whirlpool’s advertising its dryers as using steam
neither violates the IUDTPA nor is likely to harm LG in a manner cognizable under that Act.

Thus, LG did not prove that Whirlpool engaged in conduct that would support a verdict for LG
under the IUDTPA.
3.

The Court and jury found that Whirlpool’s steam dryer advertising caused no

injury to LG. Accordingly, LG failed to satisfy the likely damage and injury element of the
IUDTPA, or to meet the injury requirement of Article III of the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, for these reasons and as further set forth in the accompanying
Memorandum in Support, Whirlpool respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in
Whirlpool’s favor on the IUDTPA count.
Dated: June 6, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION
By /s/ Brian D. Roche
Brian D. Roche
Jennifer Yule DePriest
Vanessa Martí Heftman
REED SMITH LLP
10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Tel: [phone]
J.A. Cragwall, Jr.
Janet Ramsey
Charles N. Ash, Jr.
WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP
900 Fifth Third Center
111 Lyon Street, N.W.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503-2487
Tel: [phone]

-2-

Stephen G. Morrison
James J. McGovern
NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH, LLP
Meridian, 17th Floor
1320 Main Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: [phone]
Patrick Coleman Wooten
NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH, LLP
Liberty Center, Suite 600
151 Meeting Street
Charleston, SC 29401-2239
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant, Whirlpool Corporation
US_ACTIVE-106408400.2-VMHEFTMA

-3-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Brian D. Roche, an attorney, hereby certify that on June 6, 2011, I filed
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF
LAW ON THE ILLINOIS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT CLAIM with the
Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send notification of such filings to the
following individuals:
Ronald Y. Rothstein
[e-mail]
Eric L. Broxterman
[e-mail]
Bryna Joyce Roth Dahlin
[e-mail]
John George Marfoe
[e-mail]
Lawrence R. Desideri
[e-mail]
Winston & Strawn LLP
35 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
/s/ Brian D. Roche

-4-