{"id":2226,"date":"2025-06-12T13:45:28","date_gmt":"2025-06-12T17:45:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2226"},"modified":"2025-06-12T13:45:30","modified_gmt":"2025-06-12T17:45:30","slug":"illinois-federal-court-certifies-interlocutory-appeal-to-seventh-circuit-on-the-retroactivity-of-the-amended-bipa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2025\/06\/12\/illinois-federal-court-certifies-interlocutory-appeal-to-seventh-circuit-on-the-retroactivity-of-the-amended-bipa\/","title":{"rendered":"Illinois Federal Court Certifies Interlocutory Appeal To Seventh Circuit On The Retroactivity Of The Amended BIPA"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., George J. Schaller, and Ryan T. Garippo<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/em>: <\/strong>On June 10, 2025,inClay v. Union Pac. R.R. Co, No. 24-CV-4194, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108672 (N.D. Ill. June 10, 2025),<\/em> Judge Georgia N. Alexakis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois certified for interlocutory appeal<\/a> her decision denying Union Pacific\u2019s motion for partial summary judgment after concluding the 2024 amendment to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (the \u201cBIPA\u201d) was not retroactive.\u00a0 In 10 days from entry of Judge Alexakis\u2019 Order, Union Pacific may request the Seventh Circuit\u2019s review of the certified question of whether the 2024 amendment to the BIPA applies retroactively. This would be a key issue of significant importance to all companies facing BIPA class actions.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff Reginald Clay is a truck driver that visited Union Pacific\u2019s facilities. He alleges Union Pacific required him to register his fingerprint information and scan his fingerprints upon entering and exiting those facilities.  Id. <\/em>at *2-3.  Clay also alleges Union Pacific did not \u201cdisclose what was done with his [fingerprint] information or how it would be stored.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *3.  On April 16, 2024, Clay sued Union Pacific under the BIPA. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In August 2024, the Illinois legislature amended the BIPA to \u201cclarify that when an entity subject to the [BIPA] \u2018in more than one instance, collects, captures, purchases, receives through trade, or otherwise obtains the same biometric identifier or biometric information from the same person using the same method of collection,\u2019 in violation of the [BIPA], the entity \u2018has committed a single violation \u2026 for which the aggrieved person is entitled to, at most, one recovery.\u2019\u201d  Id. <\/em>(quoting 740 ILCS 14\/20(b), (c), as amended by <\/em>SB 2979, Public Act 103-0769.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On November 4, 2024, Union Pacific moved for partial summary judgment and argued \u201cunder the 2024 BIPA amendment Clay was now entitled to recover for at most a single BIPA violation rather than the \u2018per-scan\u2019\u201d violation under Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc.<\/em>, 2023 IL 128004, \u00b6 24.  Id. <\/em>at *3-4.  On April 10, 2025, the Court concluded that \u201cthe BIPA amendment was substantive rather than procedural\u201d and therefore the BIPA amendment \u201cwas not retroactive under Illinois law, and thus did not apply to Clay\u2019s claim.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at *4. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Union Pacific requested certification of the Court\u2019s order for interlocutory appeal.  Clay opposed the request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s Order<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On June 10, 2025, the Court certified Union Pacific\u2019s request for an interlocutory appeal of the order denying Union Pacific\u2019s partial motion for summary judgment.  Id. <\/em>at *7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court determined Union Pacific satisfied the four statutory criteria under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1292 (b)that: \u201cthere must be a question of law, it must be controlling, it must be contestable, and its resolution must promise to speed up the litigation.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *1-2.  In addition, the Court found Union Pacific satisfied the Seventh Circuit\u2019s fifth \u201cnon-statutory requirement: [that] the petition must be filed in the district court within a reasonable time after the order sought to be appealed.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court reasoned whether the 2024 amendment to the BIPA is retroactive is \u201cundoubtedly \u2018a question of the meaning of a statutory or constitutional provision,\u201d the Amended BIPA \u201cpresents \u2018an abstract issue of law . . . suitable for determination by an appellate court without a trial record,\u201d and that the question of BIPA retroactivity \u201cis quite likely to affect the further course of litigation.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *4.  As Union Pacific argued, and as the District Court agreed, if the \u201cSeventh Circuit were to conclude that Clay was entitled to only one recovery\u2026 [that] certainty about the retroactivity of the 2024 amendment would \u2018materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court reasoned Union Pacific\u2019s motion was timely because the Court \u201cdid not consider 28 days to be unreasonable in preparing a motion to certify for interlocutory appeal a novel question of state law, especially when Clay points to no prejudice he suffers as a result.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also opined that while \u201cthe Court shares Clay\u2019s view that its April 10 order was \u2018correctly reasoned,\u2019[], its confidence does not mean that BIPA retroactivity is not \u2018contestable\u2019 within the meaning of \u00a7 1292.\u201d  Id. <\/em> In addition, the Court relied on the overwhelming decisions of judges within the Northern District of Illinois and Illinois state court finding the \u201cBIPA amendment does not apply retroactively to pending cases, [], so no current dispute exists among the courts.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *6-7.  But that the consensus of these decisions \u201cdoes not mean there is \u2018no substantial ground for difference of opinion\u2019 about retroactivity.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at *7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court concluded that though its \u201cconfidence in its earlier decision\u201d in Schwartz v. Supply, Inc.<\/em>, 23-CV-14319, (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2024) (finding 2024 BIPA amendment not retroactive to pending cases) is not changed that it acknowledges \u201cthe novelty and complexity of the legal issue\u201d of retroactivity.  Accordingly, the Court found Union Pacific meet all four statutory requirements and the Seventh Circuits\u2019 timeliness requirement and certified Union Pacific\u2019s interlocutory appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ruling in Clay <\/em>sparks newfound hope on the hotly contested issue of retroactivity of the 2024 amendment to the BIPA.  Judge Alexakis\u2019 well-reasoned decision allows Union Pacific 10 days from the Court\u2019s order to request the Seventh Circuit\u2019s interlocutory review of the certified question. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Should the Seventh Circuit grant Union Pacific\u2019s pending request, then the BIPA\u2019s \u201cper-scan\u201d damages for pre-amendment BIPA litigation will receive further consideration.  However, even if the Seventh Circuit grants the request, there is always a possibility the Seventh Circuit certifies the question to the Illinois Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Until then, the deluge of decisions referenced in Clay<\/em> denying retroactivity remain in effect.  Companies met with BIPA litigation must monitor Clay<\/em> as it progresses through interlocutory review.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., George J. Schaller, and Ryan T. Garippo Duane Morris Takeaways: On June 10, 2025,inClay v. Union Pac. R.R. Co, No. 24-CV-4194, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108672 (N.D. Ill. June 10, 2025), Judge Georgia N. Alexakis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois certified for interlocutory appeal … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Illinois Federal Court Certifies Interlocutory Appeal To Seventh Circuit On The Retroactivity Of The Amended BIPA”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[125],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,96,127],"class_list":["post-2226","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bipa"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":96,"user_id":655,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gschaller","display_name":"George Schaller","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/07\/schallergeorge-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":127,"user_id":692,"is_guest":0,"slug":"rgarippo","display_name":"Ryan Garippo","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/09\/garipporyan-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2226","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2226"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2226\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2226"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2226"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2226"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2226"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}