Lady Di's Inc. v. Enhanced Serv. Billing Inc.

Citation654 F.3d 728
Decision Date16 August 2011
Docket NumberNo. 10–3903.,10–3903.
PartiesLADY DI'S, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant,v.ENHANCED SERVICES BILLING, INC. and ILD Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a ILD Teleservices, Inc., Defendants–Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

654 F.3d 728

LADY DI'S, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
ENHANCED SERVICES BILLING, INC. and ILD Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a ILD Teleservices, Inc., Defendants–Appellees.

No. 10–3903.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued May 11, 2011.Decided Aug. 16, 2011.


[654 F.3d 729]

Scott D. Gilchrist (argued), Attorney, Cohen & Malad, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff–Appellant.Dina M. Cox (argued), Attorney, Lewis Wagner, LLP, Daniel R. Roy, Attorney, Baker & Daniels LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants–Appellees.Before ROVNER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and LEFKOW, District Judge.*

[654 F.3d 730]

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Lady Di's, Inc. alleged in this proposed class action that defendants Enhanced Services Billing, Inc. (“ESBI”) and ILD Telecommunications, Inc. are billing aggregators engaged in “cramming” by placing unauthorized charges on customers' telephone bills. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants arranged to have unauthorized charges placed on its telephone bill and, in the six years before this suit was filed, have been responsible for unauthorized charges being placed on the telephone bills of more than one million Indiana telephone numbers. The complaint alleged that plaintiff “never requested, authorized, or even knew about” the services for which defendants charged it. The evidence, however, turned out differently. Both defendants produced evidence proving that the plaintiff actually ordered the services in question.

Despite that evidence, plaintiff has pursued the case, arguing that although it actually ordered the services, the charges were never properly authorized. The plaintiff's case now hinges on its theory that, even if a customer has actually ordered and benefitted from a service, the service was not legally authorized if the defendants did not possess all the customer authorization documentation required by the Indiana anti-cramming regulation, 170 IAC § 7–1.1–19(p). Indiana's anti-cramming regulation does not provide a private right of action, but the plaintiff argues that the defendants' failure to comply proves, without more, common law unjust enrichment, so that potential class members are entitled to a refund for all services for which defendants charged them. The plaintiff also argues that the defendants' failure to comply with the regulation proves a claim for damages under Indiana's Deceptive Commercial Solicitation Act, Ind.Code § 24–5–19–9.

The district court denied the plaintiff's request for class certification and granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the unjust enrichment and statutory deception claims. Lady Di's, Inc. v. Enhanced Services Billing, Inc., 2010 WL 4751659 (S.D.Ind. Nov. 16, 2010). We affirm the district court's judgment, though we follow a somewhat different path to that end. Turning first to the merits, we conclude that the Indiana anti-cramming regulation does not apply to these defendants because they are not telephone companies and did not act in this case as billing agents for telephone companies. Second, we find that there was no unjust enrichment where the plaintiff ordered and received the services in question. Third, we find that the Deceptive Commercial Solicitation Act does not apply because the plaintiff had actually ordered the services for which it was charged. Finally, because we reject plaintiff's theory of the case, premised solely on the defendants' common violation of the Indiana anti-cramming regulation, we affirm the district court's denial of class certification because common issues do not predominate over individual issues, as required for a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).

I. Factual and Procedural BackgroundA. The Parties

Plaintiff Lady Di's is a small business incorporated in Indiana, where it also has its principal place of business. Lady Di's uses AT & T as its telephone company. Dianne Markin–Venn is the president and owner of Lady Di's and personally reviews and pays the company's telephone bill. Defendant ESBI is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Texas. Defendant ILD is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Florida. Both defendants are “billing clearing-houses” or “billing aggregators.”

[654 F.3d 731]

As billing aggregators, ESBI and ILD are not directly involved with the sale of telecommunications and related services to customers. Instead, they act as intermediaries between telephone companies and service providers.

The term “service providers” refers to a wide variety of vendors, including long distance providers, internet and web-hosting companies, directory assistance operators, and voice mail providers. There are hundreds of service providers throughout the country. They sell telecommunications and related services (and sometimes unrelated services) to customers and then use billing aggregators to transmit charges to telephone companies to be included in customers' bills. The charges from service providers aggregated by these defendants appear on customers' local telephone bills on pages labeled “ESBI” or “ILD.” After customers pay their telephone bills, ESBI and ILD collect payments for service provider charges recovered by local telephone companies, deduct part of the payment as a fee, and forward the rest on to the service providers.

B. Allegations of Unauthorized Charges on the Plaintiff's Telephone Bill

The plaintiff contends that for several months in 2008, defendants ESBI and ILD each placed unauthorized charges on its telephone bill. ILD placed a monthly charge of $49.95 from the service provider “Advanced Business Services, LLC,” an e-fax service, on the plaintiff's AT & T telephone bill. The charge was labeled “ADVANCED BUS. SVCS, LLC–EFAX SVC MTHLY.” Dkt. 125, Ex. C1–C2. Defendant ESBI placed a monthly charge of $42.75 from “My Local Reach, Inc.,” a company that registers customer websites with Internet search engines and directories, on plaintiff's bill. The charge was labeled “MYLOCALREACH–ONLINE YP LISTING MTH FEE.” Id. On plaintiff's telephone bills, all of these charges were marked on both the front cover sheet and on pages within the bills marked “ESBI” and “ILD.” Id.

The complaint alleged that the plaintiff paid its October 2008 telephone bill before it discovered the ESBI and ILD charges, but plaintiff's owner testified that she questioned the October charges before paying the bill. The plaintiff eventually paid the charges but later requested a refund. The plaintiff first contacted AT & T for a refund and was told to contact ESBI and ILD. ESBI refused to refund the charges. ILD never returned its call. The plaintiff then turned the matter over to its attorneys. After this lawsuit was filed, the plaintiff's account was credited in full (minus $14.00 in sales tax) for the disputed charges: $199.75 for the My Local Reach/ESBI charges and $299.70 for the Advanced/ILD charges. Dkt. 125, Ex. C3–C4; Dkt. 139, Ex. A, ¶ 11 (Decl. of Kathy McQuade); Dkt. 139, Ex. B, at 67 (Markin–Venn Dep.); Dkt. 86, Ex. C, at 95–96 (Markin–Venn Dep.).1

“Cramming” means placing unauthorized charges on telephone bills, but the defendants have produced evidence showing that the plaintiff actually ordered the disputed services for which it was billed. ESBI produced a recorded conversation between a sales representative of service provider My Local Reach and plaintiff's owner Markin–Venn, who orally authorized My Local Reach to bill Lady Di's on its local telephone bill $39.95 per month. See Dkt. 84, at 6–8 (transcript of July 15, 2008 conversation). Likewise, ILD produced a recorded conversation between

[654 F.3d 732]

service provider Advanced's third party verification service and Lady Di's. In that conversation, a representative of Lady Di's (who claimed to be Markin–Venn) agreed to be billed for Advanced's services. See Dkt. 90, Ex. B, at 29–30 (Markin–Venn Dep.); see also id., Ex. C, at 7–8 (transcript of May 6, 2008 conversation). This evidence of oral authorization is undisputed.C. Procedural History

The plaintiff first filed suit and moved for class certification in state court. The defendants then removed the case to the Southern District of Indiana. The district court granted ILD's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's constructive fraud claim but denied ILD's motion to dismiss the claims for unjust enrichment and statutory deception. After discovery, the district court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification and granted defendants' motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims for unjust enrichment and statutory deception. The plaintiff appeals both rulings.

II. AnalysisA. The Merit s

Because the plaintiff's legal theory affects whether common or individual issues predominate and thus whether the class may be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), we first address the merits of the unjust enrichment and statutory deception claims before turning to the class certification issue. We review the district court's summary judgment decisions de novo, viewing all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Trask–Morton v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., 534 F.3d 672, 677 (7th Cir.2008). Summary judgment is appropriate only where the moving parties show that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving parties bear the initial burden of demonstrating that these requirements have been met. They may meet this responsibility by showing that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case if that party bears the burden of proof. Trask–Morton, 534 F.3d at 677.

1. The Indiana “Cramming” Regulation

The plaintiff builds its case on a regulation issued by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission that was designed to counter the widespread consumer fraud practice known as “cramming.” Cramming, as described by the Federal Communications Commission, is the practice of “placing unauthorized, misleading, or deceptive...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • MBS–certified Pub. Accountants, LLC v. Wisconsin Bell Inc., 2008AP1830.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • February 24, 2012
    ...see Indiana's anti-cramming statutes and regulations, which do not provide a private right of action. Lady Di's, Inc. v. Enhanced Services Billing, Inc., 654 F.3d 728 (7th Cir.2011) (citing Ind.Code § 8–1–29–5(2) and 170 Ind. Admin. Code § 7–1.1–19(p)). 19. Wisconsin Stat. § 100.207 was ado......
  • Stammco, L.L.C. v. United Tel. Co. of Ohio
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • July 16, 2013
    ...was billed by defendants. The result will be multiple mini-trials, each requiring individual proofs”); Lady Di's, Inc. v. Enhanced Servs. Billing, Inc., 654 F.3d 728, 738 (7th Cir.2011) (customers' individual transactions would need to be examined to consider whether the claims for unjust e......
  • Starr v. Chi. Cut Steakhouse, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • December 15, 2014
    ...must examine individual transactions in adjudicating the claim. See Messner, 669 F.3d at 815 ; see also Lady Di's, Inc. v. Enhanced Servs. Billing, Inc., 654 F.3d 728, 738 (7th Cir.2011). Chicago Cut argues that Plaintiffs cannot meet the predominance requirement under the standard imposed ......
  • Thomas ex rel. Silva v. City of Blue Island
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • March 5, 2018
    ...of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id. (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325); see also Lady Di's, Inc. v. Enhanced Servs. Billing, Inc., 654 F.3d 728, 732 (7th Cir. 2011). In their legal memoranda, Defendants do not challenge the factual support of the second and third element......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT