Page 32 - Sharp-Hundley 2012
P. 32

geographical  term,  which  it  found  unnecessary  due  to  the  limited  prohibited  customer  base.    “This
        covenant does not prohibit defendant from preparing taxes or providing related services to the general
        public, or to plaintiff’s or H&R Block’s clients generally.  She is only prohibited from serving those clients
        she serviced while employed by plaintiff.  This limited restriction reasonably balances defendant’s right to
        earn  a  living  with  plaintiff’s  right  to  protect  its  customer  relationships  and  its  investment  in  developing
        defendant’s skills”, the court said.  Zabaneh Franchises, LLC v. Walker, 2012 IL App (4th) 110215.

         Unsophisticated Consumer Must Represent Significant Population . . .

             The  “unsophisticated  consumer”  remains  the  standard  under  Fair  Debt  Collection  Practices  Act  §
        1692g  (see  Sharp  Thinking  No.  63  (May  2012)),  but  even  that  “uninformed,  naïve  and  trusting”
        hypothetical  individual  has  “a  rudimentary  knowledge  about  the  financial  world”,  is  capable  of  “making
        basic deductions and inferences,” and is not confused by mere “puffery,” the 7th Circuit ruled recently.
        Moreover, Zemeckis v. Global Credit & Collec. Corp., 679 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2012), makes clear that the
        claimed “unsophisticated consumer” must represent “a significant fraction of the population” in order to
        obtain treatment of the alleged confusion as a disputed matter of fact.

                                  . . . But Is “Not A Dimwit,” Court Says

             Summarizing case law similar to that analyzed in Zemeckis, another panel in the Seventh Circuit has
        subsequently concluded that the unsophisticated consumer “is not a dimwit.”  However, in Lox v. CDA,
        Ltd., __ F.3d __, 2012 WL 3124781 (2012), the court said the unsophisticated consumer is not presumed
        to know relevant legal precedent.  Accordingly, the court found actionable a threat to collect legal fees in
        circumstances where they could not be awarded.

              Plaintiff’s Own Conduct Justifies Alleged Retaliatory Discharge

             A  plaintiff  cannot  state  a  cognizable  wrongful  discharge  claim  (see  Sharp  Thinking  No.  50)  (Aug.
        2011)) by claiming her employer discharged her for complaining of inadequacies for which she herself
        was responsible, a panel of the Appellate Court has ruled.  In Ulm v. Mem. Med. Ctr., 2012 IL App (4th)
        110421, the plaintiff allegedly complained of shortcomings in record-keeping for which she, as operations
        manager of health information, was responsible.

                                   More Rule 9011 Sanctions Imposed

             Noteworthy uses of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011, discussed in Sharp Thinking No. 55
        (Dec.  2011),  continue  to  arise.    In  In  re  Blue  Pine  Group,  Inc.,  457  B.R.  64  (9th  Cir.  BAP  2011),  a
        Bankruptcy  Appellate  Panel  affirmed  sanctions  of  $109,528  for  an  attorney’s  filing  of  a  Chapter  7
        bankruptcy on behalf of a corporation which in fact had not properly authorized the filing.  Similarly, in
        Lamar Crossing Apts., L.P., 2011 WL 6155714 (6th Cir. BAP 2011), another panel affirmed sanctions of
        $42,299.08 for the filing of a limited partnership’s bankruptcy without proper authorization.  Moreover, in In
        re Love, 461 B.R. 29 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2011), a court ordered the debtor’s attorney to disgorge all but $250
        of his fee for putting the debtor into a Chapter 13 bankruptcy when she should have been in Chapter 7.

                                                                     -- John T. Hundley, 618-242-0246, Jhundley@lotsharp.com
        John\Sharp Thinking\#71.doc

        ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
                                           THE  SHARP  LAW  FIRM,  P.C.

                1115 Harrison, P.O. Box 906, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 • Telephone 618-242-0246 • Facsimile 618-242-1170 • www.thesharpfirm.com

           Business Transactions • Litigation • Financial Law • Problem Finances • Real Estate • Corporate • Commercial Disputes • Creditors’ Rights •
                           Arbitration • Administrative Law • Employment Matters • Estate Planning • Probate • Family Law


          Terry Sharp: Tsharp@lotsharp.com; John T. Hundley: Jhundley@lotsharp.com; Rebecca L. Reinhardt: Rreinhard@lotsharp.com;
                                             Bentley J. Bender: Bbender@lotsharp.com

                                                        Advertising Material
   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37