Roti Restaurants Can’t Shake Suit Over Payment Card Data

Bloomberg Law: Privacy & Data Security brings you single-source access to the expertise of Bloomberg Law’s privacy and data security editorial team, contributing practitioners,...

By Jimmy H. Koo

Mediterranean fast food chain Roti Restaurants LLC must face allegations in Illinois state court that it printed receipts containing too much payment card information ( Lindner v. Roti Rests., LLC , 2017 BL 256174, N.D. Ill., No. 17-cv-935, 7/24/17 ).

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found July 25 that it lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiffs didn’t suffer an actual injury that gave them standing to sue in federal court. It remanded the case to the state court where it was originally filed.

U.S. District Judge Robert M. Dow said neither side can point to an Illinois Supreme Court case that definitively resolved the extent to which the federal and Illinois standards for standing are similar. “Having failed to identify a clear path through state law, this Court can venture no further into the doctrinal thicket,” Dow said.

According to the plaintiffs, Roti Restaurants printed credit card receipts that contained the first six and last four digits from payment cards, in violation of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). Companies are required under the law to redact from receipts all but the last five numbers from a credit card, as well as expiration dates.

Plaintiffs initially filed a class action complaint in the Northern District, but later dropped the case. They then filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County in Illinois, incorporating and expanding upon the allegations in their federal complaint. Roti succeeded in moving the case back to the Northern District and sought to have that court dismiss it.

Instead of addressing Roti’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing that they lacked standing to sue in federal court.

“Plaintiffs, who originally brought this dispute to federal court about a year ago, now insist that the case can only proceed in state court, while Defendant, which consistently has argued that this cannot proceed in federal court, resists Plaintiffs’ effort to return the case to state court,” Dow wrote.

Markoff Leinberger LLC represented the plaintiffs. Thompson Coburn LLP represented Roti.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jimmy H. Koo in Washington at

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Donald Aplin at

For More Information

Full text of the court's opinion is available at

Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Request Bloomberg Law: Privacy & Data Security