Ware et al v. Best Buy Stores, LP et al

Filing 124

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Samsung's motion to dismiss 100 is granted and Counts II-V of the Wares complaint are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 6/3/2019. Mailed notice. (ym, )

Case: 1:18-cv-00886 Document #: 124 Filed: 06/03/19 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1535

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
TAWANNA AND ANTHONY WARE, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., BEST BUY STORES, L.P. (d/b/a Best
Buy, Geek Squad, and Magnolia Home
Theater) and BEST BUY CO. INC., (d/b/a
Geek Squad and Magnolia Home Theater),
Defendants.

)
)
) Case No. 18-cv-886
)
) Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiffs, Tawanna and Anthony Ware, brought this action arising from their purchase
of a television against defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd., Best Buy Stores, L.P., and Best Buy Co. Inc. As is relevant here, the plaintiffs allege that
Samsung Electronics America and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. have violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and have been unjustly enriched at the
Wares’ expense. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter
“Samsung”) move this Court to dismiss the claims against them for failure to state a claim. For the
reasons set forth below, that motion [100] is granted and counts II-V of the Wares’ amended
complaint are dismissed without prejudice.
Background
The following allegations are taken from the Wares’ complaint and supporting documents
and are accepted as true for the purpose of the present motion. On June 8, 2013, the Wares
purchased a sixty-four-inch Samsung 3-D plasma television from a Magnolia Home Theater location
1

Case: 1:18-cv-00886 Document #: 124 Filed: 06/03/19 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:1536

in a Chicago, Illinois Best Buy store. The Wares subsequently moved to North Carolina. In late
2014, Samsung stopped manufacturing plasma televisions and allegedly stopped inventorying parts
to repair the plasma televisions it had previously sold. In May 2017, the Ware’s TV failed and
required replacement parts. Best Buy informed the Wares that parts were not available to fix their
television. As a result, the Wares acquired a new television. A consumer survey conducted in 2014
indicates that consumers expect to own their television for 7.4 years.
Legal Standard
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal
sufficiency of the complaint, not the merits of the allegations. The allegations must contain
sufficient factual material to raise a plausible right to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 569 n.14, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require a plaintiff
to plead particularized facts, the complaint must assert factual “allegations that raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.” Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751–52 (7th Cir. 2011). When ruling
on a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as
true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Boucher v. Fin. Sys. of Green Bay, Inc.,
880 F.3d 362, 365 (7th Cir. 2018).
Discussion
The plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that Samsung violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act by
selling televisions without adequate product life cycle management procedures in place and by selling
televisions without maintaining adequate parts to service or repair those televisions for a reasonable
period of time.
In order to state an Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA)
claim based on unfair acts or practices, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the existence of a deceptive or
unfair act or practice by the defendant; (2) the defendant’s intent that the plaintiff rely on the
2

Case: 1:18-cv-00886 Document #: 124 Filed: 06/03/19 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:1537

deceptive or unfair practice; (3) that the unfair or deceptive practice occurred during a course of
conduct involving trade or commerce; and (4) that the deceptive or unfair practice was the
proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732, 639 (7th
Cir. 2014). Samsung contends that the Wares have not adequately alleged an unfair business
practice. Conduct is unfair under ICFA if it violates public policy, is so oppressive that the
consumer has little choice but to submit, and causes consumers substantial injury. Siegel v. Shell Oil
Co. 612 F.3d 932, 935 (7th Cir. 2010).
Samsung first asserts that the Wares have failed to identify a public policy that their conduct
violates. As the Wares concede, a practice offends public policy if it violates a standard of conduct
contained in an existing statute or common law doctrine that typically applies to such a situation or
otherwise falls within “the penumbra of some established concept of unfairness.” Ekl v. Knecht, 223
Ill.App.3d 234, 242, 585 N.E.2d 156 (1991); ABC Business Forms, Inc. v. Pridamor, Inc., No. 09 C 3222,
2009 WL 4679477, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 1, 2009) (Guzman, J.).
Conclusory assertions of “industry norm” aside, however, the Wares have not alleged that
the failure to stock replacement parts for consumer electronics violates an established concept of
fairness. Nor have the Wares identified any standard of conduct contained within Illinois’ statutes
or common law that would have required Samsung to maintain a stock of replacement parts. The
sole public policy that the Wares point to in support of their position is a California statute, which is
irrelevant to establishing a public policy in Illinois. See generally Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.03(b).
Accordingly, the Wares have failed to adequately allege that Samsung’s actions violated public policy.
Samsung also asserts that the Wares have not adequately alleged conduct that is so
oppressive that the consumer has no reasonable choice but to submit. Conduct is oppressive only if
it “imposes a lack of meaningful choice or an unreasonable burden” on its target. Centerline
Equipment Corp. v. Banner Personnel Service, Inc., 545 F. Supp. 2d 768, 780 (N.D. Ill. 2008). Here, the
3

Case: 1:18-cv-00886 Document #: 124 Filed: 06/03/19 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:1538

Wares assert that Samsung’s conduct was oppressive because, at the time of the sale, Samsung knew
that it would not have replacement parts available but the Wares had no way to know this. As an
initial matter, this argument is not supported by the Wares factual allegations, which contain nothing
alleging that Samsung knew there would be a shortage of replacement parts at the time that the
Wares purchased their television. Even if such an information disparity existed, moreover, the
Wares have pointed to no caselaw establishing that such a situation would be “oppressive” within
the meaning of ICFA.
The Wares’ assertion that they were deprived of meaningful choice because they were forced
to buy a new television is similarly unavailing. The Wares allege only that Samsung did not stock
sufficient replacement parts and that Best Buy stated that it did not have replacement parts. The
Wares have not alleged that replacement parts were unavailable in the marketplace or that the repair
of their television was rendered impossible and thus have failed to demonstrate that they were in
fact left without meaningful choices. The Wares, moreover, have failed to establish that being
unable to repair a product constitutes oppression within the meaning of ICFA. The Court therefore
finds that the Wares have failed to state an ICFA claim. The Court accordingly need not consider
the defendants’ arguments concerning the territorial scope of the ICFA statute.
The Wares alternatively allege that Samsung was unjustly enriched by its actions. In order to
state a claim for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant unjustly retained a
benefit to the plaintiff’s detriment and that the retention of the benefit violates justice, equity, and
good conscience. Siegel, 612 F.3d at 937. Unjust enrichment, however, is not an independent cause
of action. Id. “Rather, it is a condition that may be brought about by unlawful or improper conduct
as defined by law, such as fraud, duress, or undue influence, and may be redressed by a cause of
action based upon that improper conduct.” Charles Hester Enterprises, Inc. v. Illinois Founders Insurance
Co., 137 Ill. App. 3d 84, 90–91, 484 N.E.2d 349 (1985). When claims under ICFA are dismissed,
4

Case: 1:18-cv-00886 Document #: 124 Filed: 06/03/19 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:1539

corresponding claims of unjust enrichment based on the same allegedly fraudulent conduct must be
dismissed as well. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits Tr. v. Walgreen Co., 631 F.3d 436,
447 (7th Cir. 2011).
Finally, Samsung contends that the Wares should be precluded from amending their
complaint and that this case should be dismissed with prejudice. Samsung’s argument, however, is
based on prior iterations of this case that were filed in Florida. Here, the plaintiff has only filed two
complaints in this action, and only one of those has been considered by this Court. The Court
accordingly declines to dismiss with prejudice at this juncture, although in light of the history of this
case any motion for leave to amend will be subject to close scrutiny.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Samsung’s motion to dismiss [100] is granted and Counts II-V of
the Wares complaint are dismissed without prejudice.

Date: 6/3/2019
Entered: _____________________________
SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN
United States District Court Judge

5