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)

Download PDF
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: 312.207.1000 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: 616.752.2000 -2- Stephen G. Morrison James J. McGovern NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP Meridian, 17th Floor 1320 Main Street Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 799-2000 Patrick Coleman Wooten NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP Liberty Center, Suite 600 151 Meeting Street Charleston, SC 29401-2239 Telephone: (843) 853-5200 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 rrothstein@winston.com Eric L. Broxterman ebroxterman@winston.com Bryna Joyce Roth Dahlin bdahlin@winston.com John George Marfoe jmarfoe@winston.com Lawrence R. Desideri ldesideri@winston.com Winston & Strawn LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 /s/ Brian D. Roche -4-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?