In plaintiff’s action against retail giant, Target, alleging that it had violated sections 1642 and 1637 of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Target and denial of plaintiff’s motion for class certification of TILA claims is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not clearly err in denying plaintiff’s motion for class certification of her section 1642 claim as it is readily apparent that her claim is very different from the claims of the majority of the class members; and 2) district court did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion for class certification with respect to the section 1637 claims as plaintiff was ineligible to serve as a class representative because she did not have a claim under either section 1637(a) or section 1637(b).
Read Muro v. Target Corp., No. 08-1256
Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.Argued September 12, 2009Decided August 31, 2009
Judges
Before Ripple, Rovner and Evans, Circuit Judges
Opinion by Ripple, Circuit Judge.
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
