#Avery landau atlantic records code#
#Avery landau atlantic records trial#

The trial court found that Landau lacked standing to bring the complaint in Illinois because the majority of circumstances related to the transaction occurred outside of Illinois. On December 8, 2005, the trial court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice. CNA alleged that the pleadings lacked specificity and that Landau lacked standing to bring the action under the Consumer Fraud Act. CNA filed a motion to dismiss that second amended complaint on the same basis as its prior motion. On June 13, 2005, Landau filed a second amended complaint which contained substantially the same allegations as the prior complaint. The trial court granted CNA's motion to dismiss without prejudice, finding that Landau failed to plead with sufficient specificity.

#Avery landau atlantic records code#

In January 2005, Landau filed an amended complaint and CNA subsequently filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment, respectively, pursuant to sections 2-615 and 2-1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( 735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-1005 (West 2002)), alleging that Landau failed to plead with specificity as required by the Code of Civil Procedure and that Landau lacked proper standing to bring her claims under the Consumer Fraud Act.

Landau alleged that most of the circumstances related to this alleged fraudulent transaction occurred in Illinois.

In September 2004, Landau filed this action in the circuit court of Cook County against CNA on behalf of herself and a nationwide class alleging that through uniform deceptive sales and marketing practices designed and implemented from CNA's headquarters in Illinois, CNA misled the plaintiffs into purchasing CNA's LTCI.

Avery provides a framework to assist in this determination. The main question to be resolved in the case before us is whether the transaction which gave rise to the lawsuit occurred 'primarily and substantially' in Illinois. However, that case was primarily concerned with choice-of-law standards, a different issue than the one in this case. The supreme court held that the 'Illinois Consumer Fraud Act applies only to fraudulent transactions which take place `primarily and substantially' in Illinois' and therefore precluded reliance on transactions occurring entirely outside Illinois to determine whether Illinois law applied to the case. This test has recently been reaffirmed by our supreme court in Barbara's Sales, Inc. The test is simply stated in Avery as follows: do the 'circumstances that relate to the disputed transaction occur primarily and substantially in Illinois'? Avery, 216 Ill.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 216 Ill. The Consumer Fraud Act is a statute without extraterritorial effect 'the General Assembly did not intend the *** Act to apply to fraudulent transactions which take place outside Illinois.' Avery v.

On appeal the parties frame this as a question of standing however, the real issue is whether Landau, a Pennsylvania resident, may bring an action under the Consumer Fraud Act under these facts.