Hellige et al v. Wal-Mart, Inc.

Filing 66

ORDER Granting 65 MOTION modify deadlines, Finding as Moot 55 MOTION to Stay re 54 MOTION to Certify Class, Granting 51 MOTION to Amend/Correct, Denying without prejudice 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment, Denying without preju dice 54 MOTION to Certify Class, and Finding as Moot 63 Motion to Modify the Discovery Schedule. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum & Order, Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint (Doc. 51 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff sh all file her amended complaint no later than January 18, 2022. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 50 ) is DENIED without prejudice as premature. Plaintiff's motion for class certification (Doc. 54 ) is DENIED without prejudice with leave to refile, and the motion to stay briefing (Doc. 55 ) is MOOT. Plaintiff's motion to modify deadlines (Doc. 65 ) is GRANTED. The Court adopts Plaintiff's proposed discovery deadlines and extends the deadline for filing a motion for class certification through March 15, 2022. Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff's motion for class certification no later than April 15, 2022. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 1/10/2022. (kll)

Case 3:20-cv-00455-DWD Document 66 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #469

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TRISTA OETTLE, on behalf of )
herself and all others similarly )
)
situated,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WAL-MART, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.

Case No. 20-cv-455-DWD

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
In this putative class action, Plaintiff Triste Oettle alleges that a Balloon Time 9.5”
helium tank sold by Defendant Wal-Mart, Inc. (“Walmart”) is not of merchantable quality
and is not fit for its intended purpose of inflating helium balloons so that they float for
an appropriate period of time. This matter comes before the Court for purposes of docket
control and on Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint (Doc. 51). The proposed first
amended complaint adds an Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act claim against a new party, Worthington Cylinder Corporation, and a claim brought
pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code against Walmart.
The operative complaint (Doc. 1-2) alleges that Walmart breached the implied
warranty of merchantability, 810 ILCS 5/2-314, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15
U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312, and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, 810
ILCS 5/2-315, by selling the Balloon Time 9.5” Helium Tank. Balloons inflated by the

Case 3:20-cv-00455-DWD Document 66 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #470

tanks allegedly fail to stay afloat for a sufficient period of time. The proposed amended
complaint includes the two warranty claims and adds an Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act claim against a new party, Worthington, alleging that
the packing of the helium tank indicates that it is “Made in the USA with global
components,” which interior, but not exterior, packaging makes clear includes balloons
that are made in Malaysia. It also adds a revocation of acceptance claim against Walmart,
pursuant to 810 ILCS 5/2-608(1)(b), through which Plaintiff seeks to revoke acceptance
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated for the substantial impairment of her
first product purchase.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that leave of court is required to
amend a pleading and that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”
Leave to amend can be denied if there is undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, undue
prejudice, or futility. See King v. Kramer, 763 F.3d 635, 643-644 (7th Cir. 2014). Defendant
argues that Plaintiff’s request to amend is untimely, lacks new evidence, and would cause
undue prejudice. The Court, however, notes that this case is still in its early stages, with
the question of class certification outstanding, and finds that justice requires freely giving
Plaintiff leave to amend at this time. As such, Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 51) is
GRANTED over Defendant’s objections. In light of this ruling, the Court DENIES
without prejudice as premature Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 50).
The Court notes that Plaintiff also has filed a placeholder motion to certify class
(Doc. 54) and a motion to stay the motion to certify class (Doc. 55). The motion to stay
explains that, pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), a

Case 3:20-cv-00455-DWD Document 66 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #471

placeholder motion to certify class is necessary to prevent an offer of judgment or
settlement offer that could moot Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff asks that briefing and ruling
on the motion be delayed until all class-related discovery is complete and, presumably, a
more thorough motion to certify class can be filed. Defendant opposes the request to stay.
In reviewing Plaintiff’s request, the Court notes that Damasco was overruled by the
Seventh Circuit in Chapman v. First Index, Inc. 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015)(“We
overrule Damasco … and similar decisions to the extent they hold that a defendant’s full
offer of compensation moots the litigation or otherwise ends the Article III case or
controversy.”). After Chapman was decided, the Supreme Court similarly held that an
unaccepted offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s complaint in a putative class
action. Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, 136 S.Ct. 663, 668-72 (2016). In light of the current state
of the law related to unaccepted offers of judgment in putative class actions, the Court
cannot discern the need for a placeholder motion at this time. See also Laurens v. Volvo
Cars of North America, LLC, 868 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2017)(noting that attempts other than
offers of judgment to moot a lawsuit through unaccepted settlement offers or payments
likewise do not moot a putative class action). As Plaintiff’s placeholder motion to certify
class is unnecessary and undeveloped at this time, the Court DENIES it without
prejudice and FINDS as MOOT the motion to stay briefing.
Finally, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the discovery and class certification
briefing deadlines on December 14, 2021. To date, Defendant has not objected to or
responded in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. As such, the Court adopts Plaintiff’s
proposed discovery schedule and extends the deadline for filing a fully briefed motion

Case 3:20-cv-00455-DWD Document 66 Filed 01/10/22 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #472

for class certification through March 15, 2022. Defendant’s opposition thereto shall be
filed no later than April 15, 2022.
CONCLUSION
For the above-stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint (Doc. 51) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file her amended complaint by January 18, 2022. Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment (Doc. 50) is DENIED without prejudice as premature.
Plaintiff’s motion for class certification (Doc. 54) is DENIED without prejudice with
leave to refile, and the motion to stay briefing (Doc. 55) is MOOT. Plaintiff’s motion to
modify deadlines (Doc. 65) is GRANTED. The Court adopts Plaintiff’s proposed
discovery deadlines and extends the deadline for filing a motion for class certification
through March 15, 2022. Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff’s motion for class
certification no later than April 15, 2022.

So Ordered
Dated: January 10, 2022

_________________________________
David W. Dugan
United States District Judge