Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Iosello v. Orange Lake Country Club Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

May 14, 2015

CHRISTOPHER IOSELLO and LEANN IOSELLO, for Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
ORANGE LAKE COUNTRY CLUB INC., Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HARRY D. LEINENWEBER, District Judge.

Before the Court are Defendant Orange Lake Country Club Inc.'s ("Orange Lake") Motions for Sanctions pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 11 [ECF No. 47], and for Attorneys' Fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 [ECF No. 51]. For the reasons stated herein, the Motions are denied.

I. BACKGROUND

The instant motions for sanctions and fees arise from Plaintiffs Christopher and Leann Iosello's two-count Class Action Complaint alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. § 227, and Illinois Restricted Call Registry Act, 815 ILCS 402/10. According to the Complaint, the Iosellos began receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls after attending a sales presentation for timeshares at Orange Lake. From the beginning of this lawsuit, Orange Lake insisted that it had never used any of the telephone numbers from which the calls were placed. On July 23, 2014, Orange Lake provided affidavits from its Director of Telecommunications and Director of Marketing averring the same. The following month, the Iosellos' counsel issued subpoenas on several telecom providers to determine who owned the phone numbers at issue. ( See, Ex. 2 to Pls.' Opp., ECF No. 58-2.) At the same time, Orange Lake served discovery on the Iosellos. On October 1, 2014, just days before their discovery responses were due, the Iosellos moved for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a), "hav[ing] concluded that further pursuit of their claims would be imprudent." (Pls.' Mot. for Voluntary Dismissal, ECF No. 27.) Orange Lake opposed the Motion to the extent that the dismissal was without costs or payment of Orange Lake's attorneys' fees. ( See, Def.'s Opp. to Mot. for Voluntary Dismissal, ECF No. 31.) On December 11, 2014, the Court granted the Iosellos' Motion, dismissing the Iosellos' claims with prejudice and without costs. (ECF No. 40.)

On January 8, 2015, Orange Lake filed a Motion for Reconsideration, urging the Court to award costs pursuant to Rule 54(d). (ECF No. 41.) On January 27, 2015, the Court denied the Motion [ECF No. 53], but agreed to take up Orange Lake's Motion for Sanctions, filed the night before, and Motion for Fees under § 1927, filed the following day.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Rule 11 Sanctions

Orange Lake argues that the Iosellos have violated Rule 11(b)(3) for two reasons: (1) because they filed their Complaint without conducting a meaningful factual investigation, and (2) because they failed to reevaluate their claims or dismiss the lawsuit when Orange Lake denied involvement.

Rule 11(b) provides that each time an attorney presents a pleading to a court, he or she "certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances" that the pleading is not being presented for an improper purpose and that "the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery." FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b)(1), (3). A core purpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings. Jimenez v. Madison Area Tech. Coll., 321 F.3d 652, 656 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990)). A court may impose sanctions on a party or his or her counsel - including an award of attorneys' fees - for failure to comply with Rule 11(b). FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c)(1).

"The decision to impose sanctions is left to the discretion of the trial court in light of the available evidence." Divane v. Krull Elec. Co., Inc., 200 F.3d 1020, 1025, 1028 (7th Cir. 1999). In determining whether sanctions are appropriate, the Court must make "an objective inquiry into whether the party or his counsel should have known that his position is groundless." Cuna Mut. Ins. Soc. v. Office & Prof'l Employees Int'l Union, Local 39, 443 F.3d 556, 560 (7th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Rule 11 sanctions are to be imposed sparingly, Hartmarx Corp. v. Abboud, 326 F.3d 862, 867 (7th Cir. 2003), and the party seeking sanctions carries a "high burden" in showing that they are warranted. Lundeen v. Minemyer, No. 09 C 3820, 2010 WL 5418896, at *3 (N.D. Ill.Dec. 17, 2010).

The Court first turns to whether counsel for the Iosellos had a reasonable factual basis for filing the Complaint. According to Orange Lake, the Iosellos' attorneys did nothing to confirm or independently test their clients' assertions that the telephone calls at issue originated with Orange Lake. Counsel for the Iosellos contend that, prior to filing the Complaint, they solicited information about the substance of the telephone calls over the phone and through and a series of emails. (Pls.' Reply in Supp. of Voluntary Dismissal, ECF No. 34, at 3 n.2.) This information equipped the Iosellos' counsel with a two-prong basis for the TCPA and Restricted Call Registry Act claims: "[1] the callers stated that they were contacting plaintiffs on behalf of Orange Lake, and [2] the calls came after plaintiffs had attended a timeshare presentation put on by Orange Lake." ( Id. at 3.)

Rule 11 tempers Rule 8's liberal pleading standards by requiring an attorney to conduct a "reasonable inquiry" into the factual basis of a complaint before filing it with a court. Doe v. Franco Prods., No. 99 C 7885, 2000 WL 816779, at *2 (N.D. Ill. June 22, 2000), aff'd sub nom. Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2003). "What constitutes a reasonable pre-filing investigation depends on the circumstances of each case." Beverly Gravel, Inc. v. DiDomenico, 908 F.2d 223, 225 (7th Cir. 1990). Relevant factors include the extent to which the attorney had to rely on his or her client for factual information, the complexity of the case and attorney's ability to conduct a pre-filing investigation, and whether discovery would have been beneficial to the development of the underlying facts. In re Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., No. 09-CV-3690, 2015 WL 753946, at *15 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2015) (citing Brown v. Fed'n of State Med. Bds., 830 F.2d 1429, 1435 (7th Cir. 1987)).

Under the circumstances of this case - in which the Iosellos claimed to receive telephone calls from an entity purporting to be Orange Lake, and little information was available about the telephone numbers from which the calls originated - it was reasonable for the Iosellos' counsel to rely on the information their clients provided. See, e.g., Stove Builder Int'l, Inc. v. GHP Grp., Inc., 280 F.R.D. 402, 403 (N.D. Ill. 2012) ("[I]n this Court's view no Rule 11 sanction should attend counsel's acceptance of their client's version as they have described it."). Defense counsel argues that the Iosellos' attorneys should have, at minimum, explored inexpensive avenues of investigation, such as conducting an Internet search for the telephone numbers, contacting Orange Lake to complain, or calling back the telephone numbers at issue. (Def.'s Mem., ECF No. 47, at 11.) One member of defense counsel conducted her own Internet search and dug up information on two of the three telephone numbers, and noted that Orange Lake was not referenced on any of the websites she located. ( Id. at 3.) She also called the telephone numbers and received (1) a busy signal, (2) a fax machine sound, and (3) a response from someone who claimed to work at another business. ( Id. at 4.) Nevertheless, a pre-suit investigation such as this neither negates nor corroborates the Iosellos' claims. Under these conditions, it was reasonable for the Iosellos' counsel to rely on the factual contentions that their clients relayed to them.

The Court next examines the Iosellos' post-filing conduct. Orange Lake argues that by July 23, 2014, when Orange Lake voluntarily provided affidavits denying its involvement, the Iosellos were on notice that continuation of the litigation would be unreasonable. Shortly after Orange Lake provided the affidavits, counsel for the Iosellos issued subpoenas to telecom providers to determine who owned the phone numbers. ( See, Ex. 2 to Pls.' Opp., ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.