By Rachel Moore
A federal judge from the Northern District of Illinois has denied a motion to dismiss filed by a volleyball club and its owners in a case in which the defendants were sued for fraud and other claims for projecting that the club offered a safe environment for players, even while one of the owners was allegedly sexually abusing some of the players.
Plaintiff Laura Mullen, a parent of a former player at Sports Performance, filed the lawsuit on behalf of a putative class, against GLV, Inc. as well as individual defendants Ricky Butler and Cheryl Butler.
Mullen claimed that Sport Performance Volleyball Club, which the defendant operates along with his wife, “has the ability to place the teenage girls he coaches at top college volleyball programs in the Midwest and around the country, and ultimately give them opportunities to pursue the sport beyond college.”
According to Mullen’s claims, Butler has used his position to sexually abuse at least six underage teenage girls, with details of the abuse described in Mullen’s complaint. Butler has also been banned from USA Volleyball and the Amateur Athletic Union. Mullen claims Butler and his wife have concealed the allegations by pressuring the victims into silence, intimidating and attempting to discredit them, and misrepresenting or failing to fully disclose his conduct. Mullen also alleges that she (and the other class members) would not have paid Sports Performance or sent their daughters there, having known Butler’s history.
The plaintiff claimed fraud, fraudulent concealment, and deceptive practices based on the fact that Sports Performance claims to have the “highest quality coaches”, and provide a safe environment for underage girls to play volleyball. However, the defendants argued that the reliance by Mullen was not justifiable due to the fact that information regarding allegations of Butler’s sexual abuse were available on the Internet. Also, the statements regarding deceptive practices could not have cause Mullen injury, because she enrolled her daughter based on the good reviews of the organization.
Under Illinois law, a defendant may have a duty to speak if, among other things, it makes a statement while holding back facts that would show it is a half-truth, or when the defendant’s silence is accompanied by deceptive conduct. See, e.g., Newman v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 885 F.3d 992, 1004 (7th Cir. 2018); Miner v. Fashion Enters., 342 Ill. App. 3d 405, 421, 794 N.E.2d 902, 917, 276 Ill. Dec. 652 (2003). Mullen’s claims of the defendant’s’ statements about having the highest quality coaches and providing a safe environment suffice as allegations of misleading half-truths and qualify as deceptive conduct giving rise to a duty to speak.
The plaintiff’s claims of unjust enrichment also hold as a result of the fact that the defendants benefited due to Mullen’s detriment, by obtaining fees from her when she enrolled her daughter in the Sport Performance program.
Laura Mullen, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GLV, INC., Ricky Butler, and Cheryl Butler; Case No. 18 C 1465; 7/2/18
