Hall v. Sprint Spectrum

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 5th District Appellate » 2007 » Hall v. Sprint Spectrum

State: Illinois

Court: 5th District Appellate

Docket No: 5-05-0354 NRel

Case Date: 06/27/2007

Preview:NO. 5-05-0354
NOTICE Decision filed 06/27/07. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Peti tion for Rehearing or th e

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT ________________________________________________________________________ JESSICA HALL, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of ) Madison County. Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 04-L-113 ) SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P., d/b/a Sprint ) PCS Group, and SPRINTCOM, INC., ) d/b/a Sprint PCS Group, ) Honorable ) Nicholas G. Byron, Defendants-Appellants. ) Judge, presiding. ________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the court: The defendants, Sprint Spectrum L.P. and SprintCom, Inc., both doing business as Sprint PCS Group (collectively referred to as Sprint), appeal, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(8) (210 Ill. 2d R. 306(a)(8)), from an order of the circuit court of Madison County certifying a 48-state class in a putative class action lawsuit filed by the plaintiff, Jessica Hall. We affirm. BACKGROUND Sprint provides wireless communications services to millions of customers throughout the United States. Sprint is headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas, but operates and conducts its business throughout the United States, including within the State of Illinois. In June 2003, Hall, a resident of Madison County, Illinois, entered into a cell phone service contract with Sprint at a Radio Shack store in Granite City, Illinois. In doing so, she agreed to be bound to a one-year contract and to pay a $150 early termination fee if she did not remain a customer for a full year. Hall's account included two cell phone numbers. 1

disposition of the same.

In October 2003, Sprint discontinued Hall's service for nonpayment. Hall then called Sprint to cancel her contract, but Sprint refused to cancel her service unless she paid the remaining balance on her account plus the early termination fee. In December 2003, at the Sprint PCS store in Fairview Heights, Illinois, Hall paid, under protest, the entire amount ($415.61) Sprint claimed she owed on one of her two cell phone numbers, including the early termination fee. She also wanted to cancel her second cell phone number but could not afford to pay the early termination fee. Sprint refused to cancel the account and stop the accrual of charges unless Hall paid the early termination fee for the second cell phone number. She never paid the early termination fee for the second cell phone number, and ultimately, Sprint wrote off the second account for nonpayment. On February 2, 2004, Hall filed her original class action complaint alleging four causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) statutory fraud, (3) unjust enrichment, and (4) relief from unlawful penalties. Each cause of action rested on the theory that early

termination fees are unlawful penalties. Hall sought damages for all early termination fees Sprint had collected from consumers in the United States. Hall brought her original class action complaint under Illinois's Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Illinois Consumer Fraud Act) (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2002)) for Illinois class members and, for non-Illinois class members, under the consumer protection statutes of their respective states. With her class action complaint, Hall filed a motion for class certification, pursuant to section 2

Download Hall v. Sprint Spectrum.pdf