Khorloo et al v. John C. Heath Attorney at Law, PLLC d/b/a Lexington Law Firm et al
Filing
103
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 3/30/2021. Mailed notice (dal, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ODONCHIMEG KHORLOO and
ENKHAMGALAN TSOGTSAIKHAN,
individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated,
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
JOHN C. HEATH ATTORNEY AT LAW,
)
PLLC d/b/a LEXINGTON LAW FIRM, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
No. 18-cv-01778
Judge Andrea R. Wood
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Odonchimeg Khorloo and Enkhamgalan Tsogtsaikhan received a series of
unsolicited text messages offering them cash loans, Walmart gift cards, and other services. They
then brought this putative class action against Defendant John C. Heath Attorney at Law, PLLC,
doing business as Lexington Law Firm (“Lexington”), and Defendant Patrick Gibson, doing
business as 700life.net (“Gibson”), seeking to hold them responsible. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege
that Lexington and Gibson violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47
U.S.C. § 227, and Illinois state law by sending, or authorizing the sending of, the text messages.
The Court previously entered judgment by default as to Gibson. (Dkt. No. 86.) Now, Lexington
has moved for summary judgment on the claims against it, arguing that Plaintiffs have failed to
come forward with evidence to support the claims against it. (Dkt. No. 45.) In addition to their
submission in opposition to summary judgment, Plaintiffs also have filed a motion to amend or
“supplement” their complaint. (Dkt. No. 92.) For the reasons stated below, the Court denies
Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint and grants Lexington’s motion for summary judgment.1
BACKGROUND
For purposes of the present motions, the Court sets out the relevant facts as favorably to
Plaintiffs, as the nonmovants, as the record and Local Rule 56.1 permit. See Johnson v. Advocate
Health & Hosps. Corp., 892 F.3d 887, 893 (7th Cir. 2018). In so doing, the Court notes that
Lexington challenges the additional facts submitted by Plaintiffs, contending that those facts are
based on inadmissible evidence and contain inadmissible hearsay. But while Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56 allows a party to object that “the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be
presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2), at the
summary judgment stage, parties do not need to show that evidence is actually admissible but only
that it could be presented in an admissible form. See Cehovic-Dixneuf v. Wong, 895 F.3d 927, 931
(7th Cir. 2018). For example, Lexington objects that Plaintiffs rely on information from various
websites that have not been authenticated. (Def.’ Resp. to Pls.’ Statement of Additional Material
Facts (“DRSOMF”) ¶¶ 2–4, 6–17, Dkt. No. 95.) It is true that Plaintiffs have not yet authenticated
this evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). But there is no reason to believe that Plaintiffs could not
authenticate the documents at trial by presenting testimony from a person with personal
knowledge, presenting expert testimony, or pointing to the webpages’ distinctive characteristics.
See, e.g., U.S. SEC v. Berrettini, No. 10-cv-1614, 2015 WL 5159746, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 1,
2015) (describing common methods for authenticating webpages).
Lexington also argues that the content of Plaintiffs’ cited webpages (discussed in more
detail below) constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Subject to certain exceptions, out-of-court
1
Although the complaint is styled as a putative class action, Plaintiffs have not moved for class
certification.
2
statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted are not admissible. See Fed. R. Evid.
801–802. At least some of the material cited by Plaintiffs is plainly hearsay; for example, they cite
an anonymous online complaint discussing Lexington on the website “Ripoff Report,” which is
plainly being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. (DRSOMF ¶ 10.) Similarly, Plaintiffs
offer only a citation to a previously-filed brief to establish the definition of “IP address,” which is
relevant to their claims. (Id. ¶ 5.) But the Court declines to rule piecemeal on the admissibility of
Plaintiffs’ evidence because, even assuming all of Plaintiffs’ evidence is admissible, the record
does not establish a genuine issue of material fact.2 So for purposes of Lexington’s motion for
summary judgment, the Court treats Plaintiffs’ cited evidence as admissible.
As set forth in the parties submissions, Khorloo and Tsogtsaikhan are both Illinois
residents. (Pls.’ Resp. to Def.’s Statement of Material Facts (“PRSOMF”) ¶¶ 1–2, Dkt. No. 94.)
Lexington is a Utah-based law firm that provides credit-repair services. (Id. ¶ 3.) And Gibson’s
website, 700life.net, advertises loans and rent-to-own opportunities to the public on the internet
and by text message. (Id. ¶ 4.)
700life.net, or someone acting on its behalf, sent ten text messages to Khorloo from
September 26, 2017 to December 15, 2017, advertising loans, gift cards, and services to increase
Khorloo’s credit score.3 (Id. ¶¶ 8–16, 25–26.) A link to 700life.net’s website accompanied each
text message. (Id.) Tsogtsaikhan received eight similar text messages, also sent by 700life.net or
its agent, from August 25, 2017 to January 11, 2018. (Id. ¶¶ 17–24.) Lexington has never had a
2
At least some of Plaintiffs’ proffered evidence appears to be admissible. For example, they offer audio
recordings of calls made to the phone number provided in the text messages in which agents transferred the
caller to third parties who identified themselves as representing Lexington. (DRSOMF ¶ 18.) Because
statements made by an opposing party’s agent or employee within the scope of that relationship are not
hearsay, these recordings may be admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D).
3
Lexington contends Khorloo only received nine text messages. (See PRSOMF ¶ 26.) But the record
contains screenshots of ten text messages that Khorloo received. (See Compl., Ex. A, Screenshots of Text
Messages, Dkt. No. 2-1.)
3
marketing partnership or contractual relationship with 700life.net. (Id. ¶¶ 27–28.) While
Lexington has contracted with Progrexion Marketing, Inc. (“Progrexion”) for marketing services,
Progrexion also has never had a contractual or marketing relationship with 700life.net. (Id. ¶¶ 29–
30.) Neither Khorloo nor Tsogtsaikhan ever had direct contact or conducted any business with
Lexington. (Id. ¶¶ 31–32, 34–35.)
Gibson is the registered owner of 700life.net, and his LinkedIn page states that he is the
founder and CEO of a company called Cervont. (DRSOMF ¶ 2.) Cervont’s website portrays
Lexington as a client. (Id. ¶ 3.) An internet service provider operated by Amazon hosts 700life.net
and various websites associated with Cervont. (Id. ¶ 4.) These websites attempted to hide
information about the true identity of their operators by listing their name and organization as
“Domain Privacy Service FBO Registrant.” (Id. ¶ 6.)
Gibson is implicated in several telemarketing schemes involving Lexington. An
anonymous complaint on RipoffReport.com describes Gibson as operating a telemarking scam in
which agents first offer help with auto financing and then forward potential customers to
Lexington, which does not offer loans but instead sells credit repair services. (Id. ¶ 10.) Comments
on websites including workersonboard.com, indeed.com, and Realwaystoearnmoneyonline.com
indicate that Gibson used various entities to hire telemarketers to refer clients to Lexington in a
bait-and-switch scheme. (Id. ¶ 11; Decl. of Craig Rein Frisch Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)
(“Frisch Decl.”) ¶¶ 23–29, Dkt. No. 60.) User comments on the website 800notes.com suggest
that 700life.net shares a telemarketing phone number with a third party (“Lending Tree”) that
similarly transfers customers to Lexington. (DRSOMF ¶ 7.)
Plaintiffs contend that Cervont, Progrexion (with which Lexington admits having a
marketing relationship) and Lexington are associated in other ways. Cervont and Progrexion were
4
both listed as attending Affiliate Summit West, a convention that was scheduled for February
2021. (Id. ¶ 12.) The website FreeScoreConnect states that visitors consent to receive text
messages and autodialed marketing calls from advertisers including Cervont, Progrexion, and
Lexington. (Id. ¶ 13.) Cervont, Progrexion, and Lexington are listed as partners by The Wisdom
Companies, Fast5kLoans, and several other websites. (Id. ¶¶ 14–15, 17.) They are also listed as
advertisers by “Home Ownership Group.” (Id. ¶ 16.)
Plaintiffs’ counsel called the phone number in the text messages that Plaintiffs received,
recording two conversations.4 In Plaintiffs’ description, the calls were answered by an agent who
transferred the call to another agent purporting to represent Lexington, who attempted to “solicit
the caller for Lexington’s services.” (Id. ¶ 18.)
DISCUSSION
I.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend or Supplement the Complaint
After Lexington moved for summary judgment, Plaintiffs asked the Court to defer
consideration of Lexington’s motion. (Frisch Decl. ¶ 31.) The Court denied this request. (Mem.
Op. & Order, Dkt. No. 85.) Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for leave to amend or
supplement their complaint. (Dkt. No. 92.) Although they did not attached a proposed amended or
supplemental complaint to their motion, the Court discerns that Plaintiffs seek to add allegations
to this case that would draw a connection between Gibson, Cervont, and Lexington. Specifically,
Plaintiffs’ new pleading would allege that Gibson, through his corporation Cervont, acted as
Lexington’s agent in sending marketing text messages to Plaintiffs. The Court surmises that
Plaintiffs realized after receipt of Lexington’s summary judgment motion that the basis for
4
While Plaintiffs disclosed recordings of the two calls in their initial disclosures to Lexington, Plaintiffs
did not submit those recordings to the Court along with their summary judgment opposition, and so the
Court has not heard them. (See DRSOMF ¶ 18.) For purposes of this motion, the Court relies on Plaintiffs’
description of the calls.
5
Lexington’s alleged liability was lacking and thus seek to remedy that deficiency. However, it is
too late for them to do so.
Plaintiffs first invoke Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), under which the Court may
allow a party to file a supplemental pleading setting out “any transaction, occurrence, or event that
happened after the date of the pleadings to be supplemented.” But Plaintiffs have not proposed a
supplement addressing events that “happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) (emphasis added). Instead, the facts Plaintiffs would add—alleging a
business relationship between Gibson, Cervont, and Lexington in which Gibson sent text
messages to Plaintiffs on Lexington’s behalf—would have necessarily occurred before Plaintiffs
filed their complaint (and contemporaneously with the events already alleged therein). Plaintiffs
claim that they only became aware of the connections between Gibson, Cervont, and Lexington
after they filed their Complaint. Rule 15(d), however, concerns when the events underlying a
plaintiff’s proposed supplemental pleading occurred, not when the plaintiff became aware of those
events. Thus, the Court denies Plaintiffs leave to file a supplemental pleading under Rule 15(d).
Plaintiffs also seek leave to amend their complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(c)(1)(C), which allows the Court to permit amendments to “change[] the party or the naming of
the party against whom a claim is asserted” under certain circumstances. Specifically, Plaintiffs
seek to change Gibson’s name from “Patrick Gibson, d/b/a ‘700life.net’” to “Patrick Gibson, d/b/a
‘Cervont’ and related entities.” The Court should freely give leave to amend “when justice so
requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, the Court may deny leave to amend “on the grounds
of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, or futility.” Guise v. BWM Mortg., LLC, 377
F.3d 795, 801 (7th Cir. 2004).
6
Here, Plaintiffs have unduly delayed in seeking amendment. Based on the information
provided by Plaintiffs’ counsel in his affidavit, Plaintiffs were aware of connections between
Gibson, Cervont, and Lexington at least as far back as April 4, 2019, shortly after Lexington
moved for summary judgment and more than thirteen months before Plaintiffs moved to amend.
(Frisch Decl. ¶¶ 4, 13, 20.) Plaintiffs have offered no adequate reason for delaying thirteen months
to substitute parties. Moreover, Plaintiffs have already sought and obtained a default judgment as
to Gibson and so it is unclear how Plaintiffs may change Gibson’s name in a manner that may
alter the basis for his liability. Further, as discussed below, changing Gibson’s name to state that
he does business as Cervont would not change the outcome in this case and thus the amendment
would be futile. Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiffs only sought leave to amend after the Court
denied their motion to defer consideration of Lexington’s motion for summary judgment, in what
appears to be an effort to resuscitate a faltering case. The Court finds that it is not in the interests
of justice to allow Plaintiffs to amend their complaint at the late stage in the proceeding, and
denies the motion.
II.
Lexington’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate if the
admissible evidence considered as a whole shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, even after all reasonable
inferences are drawn in the non-movant’s favor. Dynegy Mktg. & Trade v. Multiut Corp., 648
F.3d 506, 517 (7th Cir. 2011). However, a factual dispute will defeat a motion for summary
judgment only “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party.” Lawrence v. Kenosha County, 391 F.3d 837, 842 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting
7
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The “mere existence of some alleged
factual dispute” is not enough to defeat summary judgment. Id.
A.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Count I)
The TCPA forbids the use of automatic telephone dialing systems (“autodialers”) to make
calls, with certain exceptions not relevant here. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). A text message sent
to a cell phone is considered a “call” under the TCPA. See Blow v. Bijora, Inc., 855 F.3d 793, 798
(7th Cir. 2017) (citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 667 (2016)). In Count I,
Plaintiffs contend that Lexington violated the TCPA by sending them text messages through an
agent; they do not claim that Lexington directly sent the messages. Thus, Lexington may be held
responsible for the messages if the actual sender had “express or apparent authority” from
Lexington to send them. See Warciak v. Subway Rests., Inc., 949 F.3d 354, 357 (7th Cir. 2020).
Apparent authority arises when “a third-party reasonably relies on the principal’s manifestation of
the authority to an agent,” while express authority exists “when a principal expressly authorizes an
agent and the agent acts on the principal’s behalf and subject to the principal’s control.” Id.
There is no issue of third-party reliance here, as the record does not indicate that
Lexington suggested to Plaintiffs (or anyone else) that Gibson or 700life.net acted as its agent.
Plaintiffs instead pursue an express authority theory, relying on various webpages to derive an
inference of some business relationship between Lexington and Cervont (and, by extension,
700life.net). At most, Plaintiffs’ evidence tends to show that Gibson operated various
telemarketing schemes pushing potential clients to Lexington. But the record establishes only an
indirect connection between Gibson and Lexington. There is no evidence that Gibson or
700life.net dealt directly with Lexington in any way, let alone that Lexington ever authorized
Gibson or 700life.net to send text messages on its behalf. Likewise, while the recorded phone
8
calls indicate some connection (direct or indirect) between Lexington and Gibson or 700life.net,
the calls do not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding an agency relationship. A
reasonable jury could not conclude, without more, that 700life.net or Gibson were authorized to
send marketing text messages on Lexington’s behalf.
Likewise, Plaintiffs have not established that the text messages were sent using an
autodialer. For equipment to qualify as an autodialer, it must be able to “store or produce
telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator” and to dial those
numbers. 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1). To survive summary judgment, Plaintiffs must provide some
proof that an autodialer was used. See Messina v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 210 F. Supp. 3d
992, 1003 (N.D. Ill. 2016). Yet Plaintiffs have not argued that such evidence can be found
anywhere in the record; without proof, they cannot prevail.5
The Court thus grants summary judgment to Lexington on Count I.
B.
State-Law Claims
Plaintiffs also assert four state-law claims: Count III asserts a claim pursuant to the Illinois
Automatic Telephone Dialers Act, 815 ILCS 305/30 (“IATDA”); Counts II and IV assert claims
pursuant to the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”), 815
ILCS 505/2, 505/2P, and Count V asserts a claim pursuant to the Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act (“UDTPA”), 815 ILCS 510/2.
5
Plaintiffs, citing no authority, attempt to rely on their default judgment against Gibson to prove that an
autodialer was used to send the text messages they received. But a default judgment against one party does
not establish any sort of issue preclusion against another party who appears in an action ready to defend it.
Issue preclusion only applies if the issue is “the same as that involved in the prior litigation,” the issue was
“actually litigated,” the determination of that issue was “essential to the final judgment,” and the party
being precluded was “fully represented in the prior action.” La Preferida, Inc. v. Cerveceria Modelo, S.A.
de C.V., 914 F.2d 900, 906 (7th Cir. 1990) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). These elements
are plainly not met here. Moreover, the entry of default against Gibson did not prevent Plaintiffs from
obtaining discovery from him as necessary to prove its claims against Lexington. See Blazek v. Capital
Recovery Assocs., Inc., 222 F.R.D. 360, 361 (E.D. Wis. 2004) (treating defaulting defendant as a non-party
subject to discovery rules fora non-parties, such as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45).
9
Having granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ only federal claim, the Court must
confirm its subject-matter jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. The Court exercised
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which provides for
supplemental jurisdiction over “all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within
such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of
the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). But generally, “when all federal claims are
dismissed before trial, the district court should relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state-law
claims rather than resolving them on the merits.” Davis v. Cook County, 534 F.3d 650, 654 (7th
Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Nonetheless, it is appropriate for the
Court to retain pendent jurisdiction where “the statute of limitations has run,” “substantial judicial
resources have already been committed,” or “it is absolutely clear how the pendent claims can be
decided.” Id. Here, substantial resources have been expended and the proper resolution of the
remaining claims is absolutely clear. Thus, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs’ state-law claims.
1.
Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialers Act
To prevail on their IATDA claim, Plaintiffs must prove that Lexington made, or caused to
be made, the text messages at issue in this case. 815 ILCS 305/30(a). Further, Plaintiffs must
establish “(1) that a call was made; (2) using an automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or
prerecorded voice; (3) the number called was assigned to cellular telephone service; and (4) the
call was not made with the prior express consent of the recipient.” Thrasher-Lyon v. Ill. Farmers
Ins. Co., 861 F. Supp. 2d 898, 904–05 (N.D. Ill. 2012); see also 815 ILCS 305/30(a)–(b). As
discussed above, Plaintiffs have not offered any meaningful evidence that Lexington sent or
10
caused another to send the text messages or that the text messages were sent via autodialer. Thus,
the Court grants summary judgment to Lexington on Count III.
2.
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
Plaintiffs assert two claims under the ICFA. First, they claim that Lexington engaged in
“unfair or deceptive acts or practices” in the conduct of trade or commerce with the intent that
Plaintiffs rely on their deception. 815 ILCS 505/2. Second, they claim that Lexington violated a
section of the ICFA that requires any person who promotes or advertises a business or product by
offering free prizes, gifts, or gratuities to include all material terms and conditions at the outset of
the offer, “so as to leave no reasonable probability that the offering might be misunderstood.” 815
ILCS 505/2P. The elements of an ICFA claim include: “(1) a deceptive act or practice by the
defendant; (2) the defendant’s intent that the plaintiff rely on the deception; (3) that the deception
occurred in the course of conduct involving trade or commerce; and (4) actual damage to the
plaintiff (5) proximately caused by the deception.” Brodsky v. HumanaDental Ins. Co., No. 10 C
3233, 2014 WL 2780089, at *11 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2014) (citing Aliano v. Ferriss, 988 N.E.2d
168, 176 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)). Here, without meaningful evidence that Lexington was responsible
for the text messages or the alleged scheme, Plaintiffs cannot establish that Lexington committed
a deceptive act or practice or intended reliance on the deception. The Court accordingly grants
summary judgment to Lexington on Counts II and IV as well.
3.
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
Finally, the Court considers Plaintiffs’ claim under the UDTPA. Plaintiffs contend that
Lexington violated the UDTPA’s prohibition against deceptive trade practices. 815 ILCS
510/2(a). To prevail on this claim, Plaintiffs must prove three elements: “(1) a deceptive act or
practice; (2) intent on the defendant’s part that the plaintiff rely on the deception; and (3) that the
11
deception occurred in the course of conduct involving trade or commerce.” Lynch Ford, Inc. v.
Ford Motor Co., 957 F. Supp. 142, 147 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (citing Siegel v. Levy Org. Dev. Co., Inc.,
607 N.E.2d 194, 198 (Ill. 1992)). Again, without some evidence tying Lexington to the text
messages or the scheme, Plaintiffs cannot establish that Lexington intended for them to rely on the
deception. The Court grants summary judgment to Lexington on Count V.6
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to amend or
correct the complaint (Dkt. No. 92) and grants Defendant Lexington’s motion for summary
judgment (Dkt. No. 45). The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of Defendant John
C. Heath Attorney at Law, PLLC d/b/a Lexington Law Firm pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b). As all claims have now been decided, this case will be closed.
ENTERED:
Dated: March 30, 2021
__________________________
Andrea R. Wood
United States District Judge
6
While Plaintiffs also challenged other elements of the state-law claims (such as actual damages) the Court
does not reach those elements because Plaintiffs have not established a genuine issue of material fact
regarding Lexington’s responsibility for the messages or the scheme.
12
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?