Lenovo Seeks Sanctions vs. Law Firm for ‘Abuse of the Court System’

Plaintiff Sue Harmon sues under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act to hold Lenovo accountable for the smart clock with the defective LED screen she bought from Amazon (see 2305150043), but she doesn’t identify any false representations by Lenovo "that the smart clock’s display would never malfunction or potentially need repairs,” said Lenovo’s motion to dismiss Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-01643) in U.S. District Court for Southern Illinois in East St. Louis. Harmon doesn’t claim “that she ever contacted the third-party seller or Lenovo to seek repairs or replacement,” it said. “Instead, she filed a class action lawsuit,” it said. It’s “a fact of life” that electronics products “may break and need to be fixed,” said Lenovo. In the absence of a promise that a feature would always work, which Harmon doesn’t allege that Lenovo or anyone else made to her, a malfunction can’t “give rise to a consumer fraud claim,” it said. Federal judges have told Harmon’s attorneys at Sheehan & Associates “time and again that the types of allegations pleaded here simply do not state a valid claim upon which courts may grant relief,” it said. Harmon’s complaint includes several causes of action that Illinois courts “have rejected universally” when those attorneys have pleaded them, it said. The business of Sheehan & Associates “is to file putative class actions with unsupportable theories and hope defendants will pay the firm to avoid the costs of moving to dismiss,” said Lenovo. Harmon’s complaint is the fourth that Sheehan & Associates has filed against Lenovo since November, none of which have had merit, it said. Each time Sheehan & Associates has attempted claims involving electronics products, its claims “have never survived a motion to dismiss,” it said. The court should dismiss Harmon’s complaint against Lenovo in its entirety, it said. The court also should consider an order requiring Sheehan & Associates to show cause why the firm shouldn’t be sanctioned “for abuse of the court system and the class action device,” it said. The law firm didn't respond to email requests for comment Friday.