State v. Hitachi, Ltd. ( 2021 )

Digitally signed
by Reporter of
Decisions
Reason: I attest to
Illinois Official Reports the accuracy and
integrity of this
document
Appellate Court Date: 2022.11.01
10:30:53 -05'00'
State v. Hitachi, Ltd., 2021 IL App (1st) 200176Appellate Court THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by Its Attorney General, Kwame Raoul,
Caption Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. HITACHI, LTD.;
HITACHI DISPLAYS, LTD.; HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES
(USA) INC.; LG ELECTRONICS, INC.; LG ELECTRONICS USA,
INC.; LG ELECTRONICS TAIWAN TAIPEI COMPANY, LTD.;
PANASONIC CORPORATION; MATSHUSITA ELECTRONIC
INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, LTD.; PANASONIC CORPORATION
OF NORTH AMERICA; MT PICTURE DISPLAY COMPANY,
LTD.; KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.; PHILIPS
ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICAN CORPORATION; PHILIPS
ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES (TAIWAN), LTD.; SAMSUNG
DISPLAY DEVICE COMPANY, LTD.; SAMSUNG SDI
AMERICA, INC.; TOSHIBA CORPORATION; TOSHIBA
AMERICA, INC.; TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION
SYSTEMS, INC.; TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC
COMPONENTS, INC., Defendants (STERICYCLE, INC.,
Intervenor-Appellant and Cross-Appellee).
District & No. First District, Third Division
No. 1-20-0176
Filed September 8, 2021
Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 12-CH-35266; the
Review Hon. Sanjay T. Tailor, Judge, presiding.
Judgment Affirmed.
Counsel on Ian H. Fisher, of Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP, of Chicago, for appellant.
Appeal
Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Chicago (Jane Elinor Notz,
Solicitor General, and Laura Wunder, Assistant Attorney General, of
counsel), for appellee.
Panel JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion.
Justices Ellis and Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 This appeal arises from a parens patriae action brought by the State on behalf of Illinois
indirect purchasers of products containing cathode ray tubes (CRTs), alleging violations of the
Illinois Antitrust Act (Act). 740 ILCS 10/1 et seq. (West 2018). Following disputes with the
claims administrator (administrator) as to its eligibility, the appellant, Stericycle, intervened in
that action and filed a motion “for determination of valid clams,” requesting that the court
“return [its] claims *** to ‘non-deficient’ status *** and deem them valid.” The State moved
for summary judgment, in part based on evidence showing that Stericycle had grossly inflated
the number of eligible products it purchased. Stericycle acknowledged that its claim was
overstated and “needed to be adjusted,” but requested that the court allow it to submit a revised
claim. The court denied Stericycle’s motion “for determination of valid clams” and granted the
State’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that there was no basis to validate
Stericycle’s admittedly inflated claim. The court also rejected Stericycle’s argument that it
should be given a chance to revise its claim, noting, in part, that Stericycle’s original claim was
“so untethered to reality” that it appeared to be “simply an attempt to defraud the State.”
Stericycle appeals the circuit court’s order, contending that the court erred in granting summary
judgment because it is entitled to compensation and because there was no legal basis to deny
its claim.
¶2 Before other technologies largely replaced them, CRTs were used in TV and computer
monitor displays. In 2012, under its parens patriae authority, the State filed an action in the
circuit court, alleging that multiple defendants violated the Act by conspiring to fix, raise,
maintain, or stabilize the prices of CRTs, causing consumer overcharges. Defendants fell into
six groups related to Hitachi, Ltd. (Hitachi); LG Electronics, Inc. (LG); Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V. (Philips); Samsung Display Device Company, Ltd. (Samsung); Panasonic
Corporation (Panasonic); and Toshiba Corporation (Toshiba).
¶3 Throughout 2016 and 2017, the State and four groups of defendants—namely Hitachi, LG,
Philips, and Samsung—settled the State’s claims resulting in a fund of approximately $36
million for distribution to eligible Illinois consumers, who made eligible purchases between
-2-
March 1, 1995, and November 25, 2007 (conspiracy period). In November 2017, those parties
filed a joint motion for approval of a notice plan, including notice by publication and proposed
“short form” and “long form” notices to potentially eligible purchasers, which provided
potentially affected individual and business purchasers with information about the litigation,
settlements, and available courses of action.
¶4 Both the short form and long form notices advised Illinois consumers of the litigation and
settlements, including information about participating or opting out. They advised that the
maximum amount recoverable would be $20 per television and $60 per monitor and that no
distribution would occur until after trial or settlement with the defendants who had not yet
settled. Both notices also included a phone number and website for obtaining further
information.
¶5 The notice further cautioned: “In order to be a valid claim, your claim form must be
complete at the time of filing. You should not leave any part of the claim form blank or include
inaccurate information that you intend to update later.”
¶6 A final section required verification under penalty of perjury. By verifying on behalf of a
business, a claimant confirmed the quantities purchased and that
“(i) I am duly authorized by this business to make this verification; (ii) this business
purchased its CRT products for its own use and not for resale, and, (iii) at the time of
the purchase(s) of all CRT televisions and/or CRT monitors claimed in this form
[either] its headquarters was located in Illinois [or] it was incorporated in Illinois.”
¶7 On November 20, 2017, the circuit court entered an order approving the proposed notice
plan and specifically approving the long and short forms of the settlement notice.
¶8 Stericycle, which is headquartered in Illinois, submitted a claim in July 2018, certifying
that it had made eligible purchases of 77,139 CRT monitors during the conspiracy period. A
Stericycle corporate officer, Vice-President and Assistant General Counsel Amanda Metz,
verified the claimed quantity under penalty of perjury.
¶9 In filing its claim and subsequently, Stericycle frequently acted through a claims-filing
agent, Class Action Capital (CAC). CAC’s clients also included 26 other businesses that filed
claims in this action, but who are not parties to this appeal.
¶ 10 Meanwhile, in early 2018, the State and remaining defendants, Toshiba and Panasonic,
settled the State’s claims, for a total of $11.2 million, increasing the settlement fund to
approximately $47 million.
¶ 11 In late October and early November 2018, the administrator sent challenge and rejection
letters. During that time, Stericycle received a challenge letter asking for additional
documentation to support their claimed CRT purchases. The administrator’s letter explained
that examples of sufficient documentation included receipts, invoices, or an affidavit with a
“detailed explanation” and “description of the specific products purchased and when and where
they were purchased.” The letters further specified that “[t]he documentation must also
demonstrate that the claimed units were purchased for your own use in Illinois.” To avoid
rejection of the claim, the letters required this supporting documentation by November 16,
2018, which was later extended to December 3, 2018.
¶ 12 In November 2018, in response to the challenge letter, CAC submitted a claimant
declaration. Stericycle’s declaration was verified by Metz and dated July 10, 2018. The
declaration related that Stericycle’s corporate headquarters was in Illinois and that it currently
-3-
had “approximately 25,700 employees.” It represented that: “Due to many mergers and
acquisitions, the total employee count over the class period is not available. Therefore, all
formulas and estimations are derived from the current employee count.” Metz represented that
Stericycle no longer had any “actual business records or other product purchase record
documentation” from the conspiracy period. Instead, Stericycle represented that it “worked
with [CAC] to accurately estimate proper purchase amounts.” Using data from an
“Environmental Protection Agency report,” Stericycle estimated that between 62.76% and
86.32% of its employees used computers during the conspiracy period. Stericycle also
estimated, using “[CAC]’s research” on electronic recycling, that those computers would have
been replaced three times in addition to their original purchase during the same period.
Extrapolating with the current employee count, Stericycle posited that it purchased 77,139
monitors between 1995 and 2007.
¶ 13 On January 2, 2019, CAC requested a status update on its clients’ claims, including those
of Stericycle. On January 4, 2019, the Administrator initially responded erroneously that “[all
of] your claims are no longer deficient. We are still processing deficiencies and plan to
distribute in the next few months.” CAC responded, requesting a “report of the accepted
products amounts.” In the course of preparing that report, the Administrator determined that
certain claims needed further audit. Therefore, later that same day, January 4, 2019, the
Administrator e-mailed CAC for confirmation that Stericycle “purchased and used the CRT
monitors in Illinois.”
¶ 14 In subsequent correspondence, CAC questioned or disputed that the notice required that
the CRT products be purchased and used in Illinois. The Administrator, however, maintained
that purchase and use in Illinois was required and continued to seek confirmation from CAC
that the claimed purchases met those requirements
¶ 15 In one e-mail, on January 29, 2019, the Administrator informed CAC that the
“documentation you have provided does not establish that your clients made the claimed
purchases in Illinois. In addition, it does not establish that the claimed purchases were made
for the client’s own use in Illinois.” The Administrator requested client-verified information
“that supports these two requirements” within 14 days. CAC requested an extension until
March 1, 2019, to which the Administrator agreed.
¶ 16 On March 1, 2019, CAC responded to the Administrator’s January 29, 2019, e-mail.
Regarding “use in Illinois,” CAC’s response provided an “Excel report” and listed the quantity
maintained to be for “end use in” Illinois. As for “purchase in Illinois,” CAC responded that
its clients had supplied verified claim forms and that it wanted a “written explanation” as to
why anything beyond the claim form should be required.
¶ 17 On April 5, 2019, CAC sent additional documentation for five claimants’ claims, including
Stericycle’s, asserting that they were a “sample subset of our clients to help give the
Administrator comfort and confidence that the claimed CRTs for all of our IL headquartered
clients were purchased in Illinois.”
¶ 18 On April 15, 2019, the Administrator responded. Regarding Stericycle’s claim, the
Administrator “determined that the documentation provided *** was insufficient to show
either purchases in Illinois or use in Illinois for the claimed CRT products.” The Administrator
noted that “the data only show[ed] the purchase information for monitors from 2013 through
2019 which is after the [conspiracy period].” Moreover, although Stericycle claimed eligible
purchases of 77,139 during the approximately 12-year conspiracy period, the Administrator
-4-
further observed that the documentation showed that Stericycle had purchased only 2584
monitors that were shipped to Illinois during the 6-year period for which it provided data. The
Administrator requested additional documentation by April 29, 2019.
¶ 19 While the above communications between CAC and the Administrator were ongoing,
Stericycle and CAC filed a petition for leave to intervene in this action in the circuit court in
late February 2019. The petition sought leave to file an attached “Motion for Determination of
Valid Claims and Order Temporarily Barring Distribution” and accompanying memorandum.
In part, Stericycle and CAC contended that they should not have to prove that their claimed
CRT products were used in Illinois. On April 23, 2019, the State filed its opposition to
Stericycle and CAC’s petition to intervene. The State argued that Stericycle and CAC should
not be allowed to intervene, because they “had not complied with the requirements of the
Notice and audit process.”
¶ 20 Thereafter, on April 24, 2019, CAC sent an additional e-mail to the Administrator
regarding Stericycle. That e-mail purported to explain the data and Stericycle’s claim of 77,139
monitors, breaking the data down into where the monitors were used. Regarding purchases
made for its “global employees,” CAC stated that the number of CRT monitors purchased was
77,139, the amount previously claimed. Regarding purchases made for all United States-based
employees, CAC specified that it was using an “updated data set” showing that “from 2013
through 2019,” Stericycle purchased 3238 monitors that were delivered to the United States.
CAC then extrapolated that it would have purchased 43.17 monitors per month for all United
States employees during the conspiracy period, for a total of 6605 monitors. Regarding
purchases made for end-use in Illinois, CAC used the same “updated data set,” showing 2584
monitors purchased from 2013 through 2019. CAC extrapolated that it would have purchased
34.45 monitors per month for its Illinois employees during the conspiracy period, for a total of
5271 monitors.
¶ 21 The e-mail further indicated that, although Stericycle was providing this information in
response to the administrator’s request, it “continued to maintain [that] all 77,139 claimed
purchases *** were eligible” and it was “continuing [its] efforts to obtain relief from the court.”
Stericycle corporate officer Metz replied to the e-mail the same day, “confirm[ing]” that the
information was the “best approximation” of Stericycle’s CRT purchases during the conspiracy
period “to the best of [her] knowledge and belief.”
¶ 22 Although Metz confirmed that information, about three weeks earlier, on April 4, 2019,
Metz consulted with another Stericycle employee about the company’s claim, asking in an e-
mail whether the company’s current practices of purchasing monitors through the vendor it
currently used would have been “approximately the same” during the conspiracy period. That
employee responded, “Yes they were however, if you are going to use device counts as a trend,
you will likely need to adjust based on Stericycle being a smaller company back then.”
¶ 23 In May 2019, the circuit court entered an order allowing Stericycle to intervene but denying
intervention to CAC. The court determined that CAC—which was not itself a claimant—
lacked standing to intervene to represent its clients’ interests and had no basis for intervening
in its own right. The court noted, however, that it was not determining the merits of whether
Stericycle was “entitled to participate in the settlement proceeds.”
¶ 24 Having been allowed to intervene, Stericycle filed its “Motion for Determination of Valid
Claims and Order Temporarily Barring Distribution” and accompanying memorandum on May
15, 2019. Stericycle asked the circuit court to “return [its] claims *** to ‘non-deficient’ status
-5-
*** and deem them valid.” Stericycle argued that “use in Illinois” was a “new” eligibility
requirement that it should not be required to establish. As for “purchase in Illinois,” Stericycle
contended that, to the extent that it was required, Stericycle had provided satisfactory support
for its claim. Further, Stericycle contended, if it the court rejected the above arguments, then
Stericycle “should not be bound by the releases in the [settlements].”
¶ 25 On June 19, 2019, the State filed its opposition to Stericycle’s motion, and subsequently, a
corrected opposition on July 1, 2019. Initially, the State disputed that “use in Illinois” was a
“new” requirement or that Stericycle should be allowed to disregard it. As for “purchase in
Illinois,” the State asserted that Stericycle had provided no information that the items had been
purchased in Illinois, other than identifying an Illinois address as its headquarters.
¶ 26 The State also observed that Stericycle had filed a “grossly inflated and implausible” claim
to be reimbursed from the settlement proceeds for 77,139 monitors during the conspiracy
period. The State noted that Stericycle’s claim was “derive[d] *** by using third-party
estimates of computer usage rates for 1993 and 2001 to estimate its computer usage rates
during the 1995-2007 Claims Period and then multiplying those estimates by Stericycle’s
current, worldwide employee count.” (Emphasis in original.) This figure was clearly
inaccurate, however, as Stericycle had acknowledged that it had acquired numerous companies
during and after the conspiracy period. As an example, the State observed that “roughly 20%”
of Stericycle’s then-current employee count included employees of a Canadian company,
Shred-It, that had no connection to Illinois during the conspiracy period. In light of the above,
the State argued that Stericycle did not establish that it had either purchased the 77,139 claimed
monitors in Illinois or used them in Illinois. Accordingly, the State argued that Stericycle’s
motion for a determination of validity of those claims should be denied.
¶ 27 On July 3, 2019, Stericycle replied in support of its motion. Stericycle asked the court to
determine only “the legal requirements to receive settlement funds,” but “not make factual
findings concerning Stericycle’s claim.” Stericycle also argued that all of its claimed purchases
were made in Illinois because its headquarters was located in Illinois, maintaining that “a
business’s purchases are made in the state where it is headquartered.”
¶ 28 In August 2019, the State filed a motion for summary judgment, with accompanying
memorandum. The State argued that because Stericycle’s claim was invalid under any
standard, the court must deny its motion to have its claim declared “valid.” The State observed
that the information submitted by Stericycle in support of its claimed 77,139 monitors failed
to show either “use in Illinois” or “purchase in Illinois.” The State additionally argued that,
even under Stericycle’s “flawed view of the Notice requirements,” the claim was still invalid.
By using Stericycle’s 2018 worldwide employee count, Stericycle failed to account for “the
company’s substantial growth since 1995—including the acquisition of companies that were
not headquartered in Illinois, whose purchases would not be eligible for recovery.” Attaching
the e-mail in which Metz was informed that she would “likely need to adjust based on
Stericycle being a smaller company” during the conspiracy period, the State argued that
Stericycle submitted and attempted to support its grossly inflated claim, while knowing it had
not made the appropriate adjustments. The State noted that Stericycle had submitted no
information to the Administrator or court regarding how many of the current employees were
employed by companies headquartered in Illinois during the conspiracy period. The State
attached information in particular about Stericycle’s 2015 acquisition of “Shred-It,” an
Ontario-based company with 5400 employees, whose work force was included in the numbers
-6-
used to calculate and substantiate Stericycle’s claim, despite it not being an Illinois-
headquartered company during the conspiracy period.
¶ 29 On October 28, 2019, Stericycle responded to the State’s motion for summary judgment.
Stericycle continued to maintain that “use in Illinois,” was not required, and that it met the
“purchased in Illinois” requirement because “businesses were entitled to recover for purchases
made while headquartered in Illinois.” Stericycle also contended that the Administrator had
not “raised any questions concerning the use of a current, worldwide employee count to
calculate Stericycle’s claim.”
¶ 30 In November 2019, the State replied in support of its summary judgment motion, arguing
that Stericycle could not show that its claim for 77,139 monitors was valid, even under the
criteria that it urged the court to apply.
¶ 31 Meanwhile, on September 4, 2019, the circuit court heard oral argument on Stericycle’s
motion for determination of valid claims. After argument, the court found that there was a
conflict between the claim form notice, which included a “use in Illinois” requirement, and the
“settlement agreement and the release,” which did not. The court found the latter to be
controlling and, accordingly, determined that, to be eligible to participate in the settlement,
Stericycle did not need to show “use in Illinois” for its CRT purchases.
¶ 32 The court also heard argument from the parties concerning “purchase in Illinois” and the
State’s position that Stericycle submitted an invalid claim in any event. In concluding the
hearing, the court remarked that it was going to give only a “partial ruling,” as it was “not
prepared to rule on this question of purchase in Illinois.” The court stated that it would further
consider that issue in connection with the State’s pending summary judgment motion. The
court entered a written order granting Stericycle’s Amended Motion for Determination of
Valid Claims “in part,” and rejecting “[t]he State’s position that ‘use in Illinois’ is required.”
The court “reserve[d] ruling on the remainder.”
¶ 33 On October 2, 2019, the State filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the September 4, 2019,
partial ruling.
¶ 34 At the December 30, 2019, hearing on the State’s summary judgment motion, the circuit
court first considered whether Stericycle’s claim for 77,139 monitors was invalid regardless of
its assertions about “purchase” and “use.” The State argued that “[t]he fact that they themselves
admit they have an overstated claim certainly makes it rational for our office to have denied
that claim; and on that basis alone, we’re entitled to summary judgment.” Stericycle argued
that “no issue was ever raised by the administrator as to the methodology and how it had been
calculated.” The court questioned Stericycle,
“Why is it the claims administrator’s burden or the State’s burden to tell the claimant,
Stericycle, that its claim is inherently and patently inaccurate? *** Isn’t it Stericycle’s
burden in the first instance to make a claim that’s accurate? *** Why is it their burden
to point out to [Stericycle] that your claim is simply false?”
Stericycle acknowledged that its claim was “overstated,” and needed to be “adjusted,” but
argued that it was “always going to be an estimate,” and “they did the best they could.” The
court found “no evidence of that,” observing that the record showed that “nobody really cared
to do an investigation.” The court noted that Stericycle’s claim, which was verified under oath,
was “false” and asked why it should not be considered a “two-bit attempt at fraud.” The court
elaborated: “Let me be absolutely clear here. I find this submission to be so sloppy, so
-7-
untethered to reality, as to give rise to—on its face, it appears to be simply an attempt to defraud
the State.”
¶ 35 The court further observed that Stericycle had “filed a motion to process claims under
correct criteria, which is” “asking the Court to have a second crack at it, to come up with a
number. Is that right?” Stericycle responded that it was asking the court to “resolve the legal
issues” first, and then they “will address these issues [regarding the quantity of Stericycle’s
claims].” The court remarked, however, that, “Even if those issues are *** resolved in your
favor, you’re stuck on this problem about your claim.”
¶ 36 The court characterized Stericycle’s request as “an extension of time to get your act
together,” further observing that “nothing precluded Stericycle from putting forward an
accurate claim, doing the work that’s necessary, applying the most basic level of rigor that
might be expected in this type of analysis, and giving the State a claim that has some basis in
reality, not some pie-in-the-sky number.” The court questioned why Stericycle should be
allowed an additional opportunity to submit a supportable claim, asking “Why should the Court
give you a second chance at this? You had an opportunity to submit an accurate claim. There’s
a claims deadline. Other folks have submitted their claims. And now you’re essentially asking
the Court to *** ‘Let us get another crack at this.’ ” The court further opined that it “d[id]n’t
know why the Court should give Stericycle any relief.”
¶ 37 Ultimately, the court granted the State’s summary judgment motion, stating:
“The Court will grant the State’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that
Stericycle’s claim of 77,139 CRT products is inaccurate. And that’s understating it.
It’s clear, based on this record that *** [t]he claimed amount is entirely untethered
to reality. I think anybody exercising the slightest bit of diligence would have known
that. And, in fact, the record evidence shows that Stericycle knew that its claim was
inaccurate, and yet it proceeded on it. It’s not the State’s burden nor the claims
administrator’s burden to police claimants who are peddling inaccurate claims.
***
Every iteration of Stericycle’s claims for the purchase of CRT monitors during the
1995 to 2007 claim period is based on an extrapolation of the head count from ***
2018, which is a time period when it was a much larger company than it was during the
claim period. In addition, that head count also includes employees of related or
subsidiary companies, some of which were not headquartered in Illinois, but rather
outside of Illinois and, therefore, even under Stericycle’s theory, would not be entitled
to make a claim.
There was no rigor employed in coming up with this claim. So to the extent that the
intervenor, Stericycle, seeks a determination on the validity of its claim, the Court finds
that it’s not valid on the basis that *** there is no basis in fact for the amount of the
claim; that is, the 77,139 monitors. Moreover, Stericycle even today has not put forward
any evidence to show what its actual claim is.
On that basis, the Court is going to grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.”
¶ 38 The court went on to rule that “[a]ll other motions,” were “denied as moot.”
¶ 39 That same day, the court entered a written order, granting the State’s motion for summary
judgment “on the basis that Stericycle’s claim for 77,139 CRT products is inaccurate, as stated
in open court.” The court also denied Stericycle’s motion for determination of valid claims,
-8-
and denied “as moot” the remaining motions, in particular, the State’s motion for
reconsideration of the September 4, 2019, order, and Stericycle’s motion to process claims
under correct criteria. The court further found, under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (eff.
Mar. 8, 2016), that there was “no just reason for delaying either enforcement or appeal or both
of this order.”
¶ 40 Stericycle appealed that order, and the State cross-appealed the denial of its motion to
reconsider the circuit court’s partial ruling of September 4, 2019.
¶ 41 In this court, Stericycle argues that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment
for the State. Stericycle contends that the there was a genuine issue of material fact that
precluded summary judgment, “namely, the parties’ dispute over the estimated number of CRT
products that Stericycle purchased during the Conspiracy Period.” It contends that the “circuit
court improperly resolved” this disputed issue “in favor of the State, not against it.”
¶ 42 The State responds that summary judgment was proper because there was no basis on
which Stericycle’s admittedly defective claim could be deemed valid. As to its cross-appeal,
the State asserts that, “upon further opportunity for review,” the cross-appeal was unnecessary
because no part of the circuit court’s judgment was adverse to the State. Instead, the State asks
this court to consider its argument that the court erred in determining that “use in Illinois” was
not required and that Stericycle failed to show that requirement, as an alternative basis to affirm
summary judgment.
¶ 43 This court’s review of the grant of summary judgment is de novo. Dynak v. Board of
Education of Wood Dale School District 7, 2020 IL 125062, ¶ 15. Summary judgment may be
granted if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and *** the moving party is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2018). “If the plaintiff fails to
establish any element of his claim, summary judgment is appropriate.” Dardeen v. Kuehling,
213 Ill. 2d 329, 335 (2004).
¶ 44 After being allowed to intervene in this action in the circuit court, Stericycle proceeded on
its motion for determination of valid claims, asking that the court “deem [its claims] valid.”
The State sought summary judgment, arguing that, even under Stericycle’s proposed
interpretations of the notice requirements, there was no basis to validate its admittedly inflated
claims.
¶ 45 The trial court agreed with the State. Even accepting Stericycle’s proffered interpretation
of the “purchase in Illinois” requirement, the circuit court noted that undisputed evidence
showed that Stericycle did not purchase the claimed 77,139 monitors during the conspiracy
period.
¶ 46 Given the undisputed evidence, Stericycle failed to show that its claim should be validated,
even if the issues that it wanted the circuit court to reach were resolved in its favor.
Consequently, there was no basis upon which Stericycle’s admittedly defective claim could be
deemed valid. In these circumstances, “there [wa]s no genuine issue as to any material fact”
that would allow Stericycle’s claim to be validated. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2018). The
circuit court, therefore, properly entered summary judgment against Stericycle on that basis.
¶ 47 Stericycle, however, submits that it merely wanted the circuit court to rule on certain legal
questions about how its claim should be assessed. Stericycle cites no authority that would
allow, much less require, the circuit court to address only its preferred issues. Stericycle
brought the question of the validity of its claim before the circuit court, and the court decided
-9-
that question, albeit on a ground that Stericycle wishes that the court did not reach. The circuit
court was not obligated to ignore a basic defect in Stericycle’s claim to reach the questions
Stericycle wanted it to consider.
¶ 48 Stericycle also complains that it was not afforded the opportunity to revise its claim.
However, it provided no authority in either the circuit court or this court that would allow it to
amend its claim after the claims deadline and after the extended deadline for substantiating
those claims. To the contrary, the notice informed Stericycle that, in order to have a valid claim,
it should not “include inaccurate information that you intend to update later.”
¶ 49 Finally, Stericycle briefly contends that any decision upholding the denial of its claims
“would amount to a deprivation of Stericycle’s rights to due process and equal protection,” but
it cites no legal authority for that argument. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. May
25, 2018) requires an appellant’s brief to contain argument supported by citations to relevant
authorities. “A failure to cite relevant authority violates Rule 341 and can cause a party to
forfeit consideration of the issue.” Kic v. Bianucci, 2011 IL App (1st) 100622, ¶ 23. Where an
appellant has failed to support his or her arguments with citations to authority, this court will
not research the issues on the appellant’s behalf. See id. (noting that this court “is not a
depository in which the appellant may dump the burden of argument and research” (internal
quotation marks omitted)); Skidis v. Industrial Comm’n, 309 Ill. App. 3d 720, 724 (1999)
(“[T]his court will not become the advocate for, as well as the judge of, points an appellant
seeks to raise.”). Accordingly, we find that Stericycle has forfeited review of any due process
or equal protection claim. See Atlas v. Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C., 2019 IL App (1st)
180939, ¶ 33 (finding that an issue had been forfeited where appellant did not provide cohesive
argument and pertinent authority).
¶ 50 Having found that summary judgment was properly granted where Stericycle’s admittedly
defective claim could be deemed valid, we agree with the State that we need not consider its
alternative basis for affirming that Stericycle was required to show “use in Illinois” for its
claimed CRT purchases and that it failed to do so.
¶ 51 Stericycle, however, contends that this court must still determine whether “use in Illinois”
is required because the trial court’s decision regarding that requirement was “not limited to
Stericycle” and the State cannot “deprive” other claimants of “the right to a review under the
correct criteria because a different claimant overstated its quantity of purchases.” Stericycle,
however, has provided no argument or authority indicating that it has standing to raise issues
on behalf of other claimants. Bank of America National Ass’n v. Bassman FBT, L.L.C., 2012
IL App (2d) 110729, ¶ 13 (“A litigant must assert his or her own legal rights rather than the
rights of a third party.”). Because we have determined that the trial court properly granted
summary judgment in this case, we will not go on to provide an advisory opinion or consider
abstract questions as to the notice requirements that are not necessary to our resolution of this
appeal. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 2016 IL 118129, ¶ 10 (“As
a general rule, courts of review in Illinois do not decide moot questions, render advisory
opinions, or consider issues where the result will not be affected regardless of how those issues
are decided. [Citation.] This court will not review cases merely to establish a precedent or
guide future litigation.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)).
¶ 52 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.
¶ 53 Affirmed.
- 10 -