United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Robert Blakey United States District Judge
putative class action, Plaintiff Robert Ahrendt alleges that
Defendant Condocerts.com violated the Illinois Condominium
Property Act (ICPA) and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
(ICFA) and committed various torts by charging unreasonable
fees to obtain real estate documents through its database.
Defendant moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons explained below,
this Court grants Defendant's motion.
The Complaint's Allegations
2017, Plaintiff contracted to sell his Chicago condominium.
 ¶ 16. The ICPA requires condominium sellers like
Plaintiff to provide certain documents to prospective buyers
for review and approval before closing a sale. Id.
¶ 1. When Plaintiff asked his condominium
association's property manager for the ICPA documents,
the manager told him that he needed to obtain them from
Defendant. Id. ¶ 3. Defendant maintains an
electronic database of ICPA documents and provides the
documents to requesters, such as condominium owners, for a
fee. Id. ¶ 2. Typically, property
managers-working on behalf of condominium associations-
contract Defendant to store and provide access to the
pertinent ICPA documents. Id. ¶ 22.
requested the necessary documents from Defendant's
website through multiple transactions. Id. ¶
35. In total, Plaintiff paid $370 for the documents: $40 in
“service fees” and $330 in “document
fees.” Id. About one minute after Plaintiff
placed his initial order, he received an email from Defendant
indicating that the ICPA documents were available for
download on its website. Id. ¶ 38. In
Plaintiff's view, this speedy transaction indicates that
Defendant provided no “actual service” and merely
used a “computer generated” process. Id.
alleges that he could not have obtained the ICPA documents
from any other source, and thus had no choice but to pay
Defendant's exorbitant fees so the sale of his
condominium could go through. Id. ¶ 45.
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant pays
“kickbacks” to property managers and does not
disclose those kickbacks to condominium sellers who use
Defendant's services. Id. ¶ 76.
survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint
must provide a “short and plain statement of the
claim” showing that the pleader merits relief,
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), so the defendant has “fair
notice” of the claim “and the grounds upon which
it rests, ” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). A complaint must also contain
“sufficient factual matter” to state a facially
plausible claim to relief-one that “allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference” that the defendant
committed the alleged misconduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 570). This plausibility standard “asks for more than
a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d
432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013).
evaluating a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, this Court
accepts all well-pleaded allegations as true and draws all
reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs' favor.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. This Court does not,
however, accept legal conclusions as true. Brooks v.
Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). On a motion to
dismiss, this Court may consider the complaint itself,
documents attached to the complaint, documents central to the
complaint and to which the complaint refers, and information
properly subject to judicial notice. Williamson, 714
F.3d at 436.
fraud claims under the ICFA must meet Rule 9(b)'s
heightened pleading requirements. Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank
Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732, 736 (7th Cir. 2014). Rule
9(b) demands that claimants alleging fraud “state with
particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.” To
satisfy Rule 9(b), a plaintiff “ordinarily must
describe the who, what, when, where, and how of the
fraud.” Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Med.
Benefits Trust v. Walgreen Co., 631 F.3d 436, 441-42
(7th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Count I: ICPA
claims that Defendant violated the ICPA by charging
unreasonably high fees that lack any connection to
Defendant's actual costs for providing documents. 
¶¶ 65-85. Defendant argues that this claim fails
for several reasons, including that no private right of
action for condominium sellers exists under the ICPA.  at
relevant ICPA provision states: “A reasonable fee
covering the direct-out of pocket costs of providing such
information and copying may be charged by the association or
its Board of Managers to the unit seller for providing”
the ICPA documents. 765 ILCS 605/22.1. The ICPA does not
expressly authorize a private right of action. See
765 ILCS 605/1 et seq. Illinois courts will imply a
statutory private right of action, however, if a plaintiff
shows four things: (1) the plaintiff belongs to the class
that the legislature intended to protect; (2) a private right
of action serves the statute's underlying purpose; (3)
the legislature designed the statute to prevent the