EAST ST. LOUIS – Amy Jett of Madison County dismissed a potential class action involving an extended warranty in U.S. district court after defendant Warrantech Corporation accused her counsel of an ethical violation.
According to Warrantech, Jett stated in a deposition that she didn’t know about a settlement offer that her counsel William Sweetnam of Chicago received.
“This is a direct violation of Illinois ethics rules,” Warrantech counsel Robert Roth of Chicago wrote in a brief opposing class certification in March.
Roth quoted a judge who wrote that no type of misbehavior is more universally and categorically condemned than failure to communicate settlement offers.
He wrote that in addition, Jett’s testimony revealed a lack of involvement in her case and a lack of understanding of her role as class representative.
“She has never read her complaint in full, and testified that she first saw it after it was filed,” he wrote.
“She does not know who belongs in the class, and thought there was a ten year temporal limitation to the class, which there is not.”
Jett bought an extended service plan from Warrantech for an LG refrigerator.
She requested coverage when the compressor failed, and Warrantech denied it because LG sent Jett a refund under a manufacturer’s warranty.
She sued Warrantech in 2018, on behalf of all persons whose requests for service during the term of the manufacturer’s warranty were denied.
Warrantech deposed Jett this February.
On March 1, Sweetnam moved to certify a national class or an Illinois class.
On March 29, Roth responded that Jett didn’t give the court the evidence it needed.
“She did not even submit the extended service plan contract which forms the basis of her claims,” he wrote.
He claimed each class member purchased a plan from independent retailers based on unique conversations.
He claimed the classes included anyone whose claim under any plan was denied by anyone for any reason.
He claimed Jett proposed no damages model for the class or even for herself.
He claimed her plan stated that repair and replacement benefits were available after the manufacturer’s warranty expired.
He claimed that when Jett called Warrantech, it invited her to make a food loss claim but she declined to do so.
He closed his brief with a statement that Sweetnam “engaged in misconduct which precludes him from representing the classes.”
Sweetnam allegedly communicated a settlement offer on Nov. 5, Warrantech responded with a counter offer on Dec. 1, and Sweetnam rejected it on Dec. 23.
“Yet plaintiff unequivocally testified in February that she was unaware of any settlement demands or offers made in the case,” Roth wrote.
He claimed courts have held class counsel inadequate based on failure to communicate settlement offers.
Roth and Sweetnam signed a stipulation of dismissal on June 1.
They practice six blocks apart in Chicago’s Loop, Roth at Reed Smith and Sweetnam at Keogh Law.