Braatz v. Leading Edge Recovery Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 5/22/2012:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
AMANDA BRAATZ, etc.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
LEADING EDGE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS,)
LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No.

11 C 3835

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This putative class action is one of the cases assigned at
random to this Court’s calendar after the untimely death of its
good friend and colleague Honorable William Hibbler.

After Judge

Hibbler had denied defendants’ motion to dismiss in late October
2011, counsel for named plaintiff Amanda Braatz (“Braatz”) had
filed two motions that were pending at the time of Judge
Hibbler’s death:
1.

Dkt. 24 was a motion for class certification,

supported by a memorandum (Dkt. 25).
2.

Dkt. 29 was a motion for judgment on the pleadings

or, alternatively, for the appointment of a “neutral
consumer survey expert,” and that too was supported by a
memorandum (Dkt. 30).
Following this Court’s entry into the case, it granted a
brief extension for the filing of defendants’ responses to the
two motions.

Then on receipt of those responses, it vacated the

previously-entered requirement for a reply on Braatz’s part.

Accordingly both motions are ripe for disposition.
As for the class certification motion, this Court finds
defense counsel’s opposition unconvincing.

To that end it is

unnecessary to rule on the ultimate substantive viability of the
class claim--that will depend on the factfinders’ resolution of
disputed issues of fact.

And suffice it to say that all of the

criteria established by Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 23 for class
certification have been met--certainly at this time.1
As for Braatz’s other motion, the shoe is on the other foot.
What has been said earlier as to the need for a factual
resolution precludes the entry of an order for judgment on the
pleadings.

And as to the suggested alternative, this Court sees

no predicate for the court appointment of an opinion witness
(see, e.g., the discussion in Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354,
359-60 (7th Cir. 1997)).
In sum, the Dkt. 24 motion is granted, while the Dkt. 29
motion is denied.

This Court has previously set a status hearing

date, but any matters that need to be addressed in the interim
may be brought on by appropriate notice.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

May 22, 2012

1

As always, if further developments in the case were to
show otherwise, decertification could be ordered.
2