Lerogan-Washington v. EYM Pizza of Illinois, LLC
| Latessa Lerogan-Washington |
| EYM Pizza of Illinois, LLC |
| 1:2022cv05357 |
| September 30, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John Robert Blakey |
| Robert W Gettleman |
| Labor: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 23, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 NOTICE of Motion by Max Phillip Barack for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief #12 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 12/1/2022 at 11:00 AM. (Barack, Max) |
| Filing 12 MOTION by Plaintiff Latessa Lerogan-Washingtonfor Limited Venue Discovery (Opposed) (Barack, Max) |
| Filing 11 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff initiated a class action lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court alleging that Defendant's biometric time clock system violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, [1-1] at 17-28. Plaintiff sought actual and statutory damages and injunctive relief. Id. Defendant removed under 28 U.S.C. 1332, claiming that the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount of $75,000. #1 6. Plaintiff now moves to remand, arguing that the amount in controversy is not satisfied and that Defendant's calculation of the amount in controversy lacks any basis in the complaint, see #10 . The Seventh Circuit has instructed that, "when removing a suit, the defendant as proponent of federal jurisdiction is entitled to present its own estimate of the stakes; it is not bound by the plaintiff's estimate.... Once this has been done, and supported by proof of any contested jurisdictional facts, the presumption is the one stated in St. Paul Mercury: the estimate of the dispute's stakes advanced by the proponent of federal jurisdiction controls unless a recovery that large is legally impossible." ABM Sec. Servs., Inc. v. Davis, 646 F.3d 475, 478 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing in Back Doctors Ltd. v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 637 F.3d 827, 830 (7th Cir.2011); St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 293 (1938)). Plaintiff faults Defendant for calculating the amount in controversy based upon a daily violation theory that finds no support in the complaint. But she alleges that "Defendant required Plaintiff and other employees to scan their fingerprints in Defendant's biometric time clock each time they started and stopped working," [1-1] 24, and she seeks statutory damages "for each violation of BIPA as provided by 740 ILCS 14/20(1)-(2)," id. at 26, 27. Based upon these allegations, the Court cannot say it is legally impossible for Plaintiff to recover $75,000 or more; on the contrary, at this time, it is quite possible that Plaintiff could recover statutory damages for each scan, which, at two per day, would exceed $75,000 in just a few weeks, assuming Plaintiff can demonstrate that the violations were intentional. See Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 477 F. Supp. 3d 723, 732 (N.D. Ill. 2020) ("A party violates Section 15(b) when it collects, captures, or otherwise obtains a person's biometric information without prior informed consent. This is true the first time an entity scans a fingerprint or otherwise collects biometric information, but it is no less true with each subsequent scan or collection."); Fox v. Dakkota Integrated Sys., LLC, No. 19 C 2872, 2020 WL 8409683, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2020) ("BIPA's Section 15(d) can be read to suggest that a violation occurs each time a putative class member "clocked in and out of work," i.e. each time a scan occurred. We believe a similar interpretation could also apply to BIPA's Section 15(b)...."). See also Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 20 F.4th 1156, 1165 (7th Cir. 2021) (Noting that a "section 15 violation, without more, aggrieves a plaintiff within the meaning of section 20. And it may follow that an "aggrievement" occurs at each violation, with a claim accruing each time as well," and certifying the question to the Illinois Supreme Court.). For these reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion to remand #10 . Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss or stay #6 by 11/23/22, and Defendant shall file any reply by 11/30/22. Mailed notice (gel, ) |
| Filing 10 MOTION by Plaintiff Latessa Lerogan-Washington to remand to the Circuit Court of Cook County (Barack, Max) |
| Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss or stay #6 by 10/27/22, and Defendant shall file any reply by 11/3/22. The Court reminds Defendant to notice all future motions presentment. Mailed notice (gel,) |
| Filing 8 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Latessa Lerogan-Washington by Max Phillip Barack (Barack, Max) |
| Filing 7 MEMORANDUM by EYM Pizza of Illinois, LLC in support of motion to dismiss #6 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(B)(3), or in the Alternative Stay Action and Compel Arbitration (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit Exhibit D)(Tranen, Daniel) |
| Filing 6 MOTION by Defendant EYM Pizza of Illinois, LLC to dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(B)(3), or in the Alternative Stay Action and Compel Arbitration (Tranen, Daniel) |
| Filing 4 MAILED Notice of Removal letter to counsel of record. (lxk, ) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (lxk, ) |
| Filing 5 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case reassigned to the Honorable John Robert Blakey for all further proceedings pursuant to 28 USC 294(b). Honorable Robert W. Gettleman no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 9/30/2022. (lxk, ) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE by EYM Pizza of Illinois, LLC Regarding Notice of Removal (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Federal Notice of Removal, #2 Exhibit State Notice of Removal)(Tranen, Daniel) |
| Filing 2 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant EYM Pizza of Illinois, LLC by Daniel Ephriam Tranen (Tranen, Daniel) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE of Removal from Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, case number (2022CH08631) filed by EYM Pizza of Illinois, LLC Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-19895945. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A, #2 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Tranen, Daniel) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Heather K. McShain. Case assignment: Random assignment. (emc, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Lerogan-Washington v. EYM Pizza of Illinois, LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Latessa Lerogan-Washington | |
| Represented By: | Max Phillip Barack |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: EYM Pizza of Illinois, LLC | |
| Represented By: | Daniel Ephriam Tranen |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
