Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
September 13, 2022, Decided; September 13, 2022, Filed
Case No. 21-cv-6079
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
One summer day, Devon Curtis strolled into a 7-Eleven convenience store in Chicago, and did a little shopping. She bought four products from 7-Eleven's store brand, "24/7 Life." She picked up foam plates, foam cups, party cups, and freezer bags, perhaps en route to a picnic or a backyard BBQ.
Before getting her supplies and going on her way, Curtis took a close look at the products. She noticed that the packaging used the term "recyclable." That representation struck a chord with her. Curtis worries about her environmental footprint, and she wanted to avoid buying a product that would add another piece of garbage to a mountain of trash.
Later, Curtis placed the products in a recycling bin, thinking that [*2] they would enjoy new life as a new product someday. But according to the complaint, the recycling never took place. None of the products were actually recycled.
The problem, it turns out, wasn't the material used in the products. According to the complaint, the products are made out of plastics that could be recycled. But in reality, the products aren't recycled that often because few recycling facilities take that type of plastic. Also, some of the products lacked markings — recycling designations known as RIC labels — and thus did not give recycling facilities the necessary information to sort the products.
Curtis later realized that she bought products that ended up in a landfill or an incinerator. Instead of going back to the store, and demanding a refund, Curtis went to the federal courthouse.
Curtis brings an assortment of claims on behalf of herself and a putative class of purchasers of the 24/7 Life products. She claims that 7-Eleven deceptively or unfairly places the term "recyclable" on the items despite their un-recyclability, in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. She also brings breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164850 *; 2022 WL 4182384
DEVON CURTIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Defendant.
recycling, products, plastic, consumer, deceptive, facilities, cups, plates, foam, alleges, label, injunctive relief, packaging, bags, courts, named plaintiff, freezer, bought, class member, injunction, motion to dismiss, purchasers, buying, bin, substantially similar, unjust enrichment, actual damage, designations, landfill, survives