United States Seventh Circuit

In a class-action suit alleging fraud and deceptive business practices, grant of a motion to dismiss is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) fraud claims did not meet the heightened pleading requirements for such claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) by articulating the "who, when, and how" of all alleged frauds; 2) deceptive-practices claims, though made under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), were properly held to federal, rather than state, pleading standards; 3) deceptive business practice claims under the CFA are subject to the notice pleading standard of Rule 8, not the heightened standards of Rule 9(b); and 4) plaintiffs' CFA claims met the Rule 8 requirements.

Appellate Information

• Argued 10/25/2007
• Decided 08/01/2008
• Published 08/01/2008

Judges

• RIPPLE, Circuit Judge., Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Seventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• David A. Novoselsky (argued), Novoselsky Law Office, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Edward F. Ryan (argued), Holland & Knight, George M. Hoffman, Michael T. Trucco (argued), Stamos & Trucco, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.