A woman who wants to sue Ticketmaster over allegedly unfair ticket scalping practices can’t sidestep arbitration rules in Ticketmaster's customer agreement by requiring Ticketmaster to instead identify other defendants who could help her land her case in court, a state appeals panel has ruled.
In a unanimous decision, Justices Margaret S. McBride, David W. Ellis and Cynthia Y. Cobbs of the Illinois First District Appellate Court said the woman, Harte Brick, could not use an Illinois court rule governing pre-suit evidence discovery. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 224 helps plaintiffs to identify parties who may be responsible for damages if their identities are not already known.
Brick brought the suit after she bought concert tickets from a reseller on Ticketmaster’s website. She claimed the tickets were overpriced, and said she suspects Ticketmaster of “secretly facilitating the mass purchase and overpriced resale of tickets by these professional ticket scalpers.”
Brick petitioned the court for pre-suit discovery of all Ticketmaster partners who use TradeDesk, Ticketmaster’s inventory management and point-of-sale system.
The trial court granted Ticketmaster’s motion to dismiss Brick’s petition because she had already identified a potential defendant – Ticketmaster itself.
“A Rule 224 petition is not an appropriate vehicle to discover the identities of additional responsible parties or additional facts bolstering a claim of liability,” Ticketmaster argued.
In her appeal, Brick told the court she did not want to sue only Ticketmaster because the company’s ticket sales contract waives class action and requires arbitration of legal disputes.
“Brick contends … she sought the resellers’ identities in order to bring class action claims of consumer fraud and unjust enrichment,” McBride wrote in the appellate court order. “Illinois law indicates, however, that the scope of Rule 224 discovery does not broaden based on the petitioner’s litigation strategy.”
Since Rule 224 was first enacted in 1989, McBride wrote, courts have consistently held that once a party who may be responsible for damages has been identified, the rule is satisfied, and the action should be dismissed.
“Brick was not entitled to pursue Rule 224 discovery in order to support her preference for litigation instead of arbitration or her preference to sue additional defendants besides Ticketmaster,” McBride wrote.
The court’s order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23, which prevents it from being cited as precedent in future cases except under limited circumstances.
Brick has been represented by attorneys with the Zimmerman Law Offices, of Chicago.
Ticketmaster has been represented by the firm of Latham & Watkins, of Chicago.