1. Who is suing who for what?

(These should be functional

descriptions, like “seller” is suing “buyer,” or “employee” is
suing “employer.” The remedy should be described and the
legal basis of the claim.)
ANSWER:
Kassie Dargo, the plaintiff, is suing CCC, the defendant for Promissory estoppel
claim under the Illinois Law.

2. What is the basis of the dispute? How did it start and why
did it escalate to litigation?
ANSWER:
It is the promise of a two year employment contract offered by CCC to Kassie. It
escalated to litigation because CCC terminated her services shortly.

3. What happened previously in the lower court or previous

hearings?
ANSWER:
The case was initially filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County. However, the defendant
had the case removed and transferred to the United States district court for the northern
district of Illinois, eastern division by reason of diversity jurisdiction.

4. What exactly is the issue before the court?

The issue before the court is whether the Motion to dismiss the claims of the plaintiff:
Promissory Estoppel, Intentional misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, and
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, should be granted.

5. What claims are the plaintiff making and why?

The claims of the plaintiff are the following:
a. Promissory Estoppel – Plaintiff claims that in reliance of the two year employment
contract with CCC, she resigned her previous position at her previous employment
and relocated from Chicago to Minneapolis.
b. Intentional Misrepresentation – Plaintiff claims that she was promised of a future
conduct (the two year employment contract) by CCC but eventually was breached
is promissory fraud.
c. Negligent Misrepresentation – Plaintiff claims that CCC was negligent for failure to
giving her accurate information regarding his employment contract.
d. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – Plaintiff claims that she suffered
emotional distress from CCC of promising her a two-year employment contract that
it never intended to giving her, and, CCC, by telling trade publications that she left
her job for personal reasons.
What is the plaintiff’s support for each of its claims?
They are the following:
a. Promissory Estoppel – Plaintiff supports this claim under the premise that
Promissory Estoppel is actionable under Illinois Law.
b. Intentional Misrepresentation – Plaintiff supports this claim that there was
intentional misrepresentation of an offer of a two year employment contract from
the e-mail she received from CCC.
c. Negligent Misrepresentation – Plaintiff supports this claim on the premise that
under Illinois law, being an employee of CCC, the latter is obligated to deliver
accurate information to her.
d. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – Plaintiff supports this claim she was
damaged emotionally when the CCC was unable to make good to its promise in
giving her a two year contract employment and the fact that CCC told trade
publications that she left her job for personal reasons.

6. What claims are the defendant making and why?

ANSWER:
The defendant claims the following:
a. There is no Promissory estoppel
b. There is no Intentional Misrepresentation
c. There is no Negligent Misrepresentation
d. There is no Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
As for the reasons, the case has not made mention of them.

What is the defendant’s support for each of its claims?

The Case does not mention the defendant’s support for its claims under its Motion to
dismiss.

7. How did the court rule on each claim and why?

ANSWER:

a) Promissory Estoppel
- The motion to dismiss filed by the defendant to this claim was granted with
prejudice because Promissory Estoppel, under Illinois Law, serves as a
substitute for a consideration in a contract. However, the court ruled that the
detriment incurred by the plaintiff in reliance on the promise of a two-year
contract with Clear Channel, she resigned her position and relocated from
Chicago to Minneapolis, is enough to establish consideration and thus render
promissory estoppel inapplicable.
b) Intentional Misrepresentation
- The motion to dismiss filed by the defendant to this claim was denied because,
as ruled by the court, Promissory fraud is actionable in Illinois only “where the
false promise or representation is the scheme or device to accomplish the
fraud.” This applies where “a party makes a promise of performance, not
 intending to keep the promise but intending for another party to rely on it, and
where the other party relies on it to its detriment. When CCC did not make good
with its promise to giving the Plaintiff a two year contract, there was Promissory
Fraud that falls under Intentional Misrepresentation.
c) Negligent Misrepresentation
- The motion to dismiss filed by the defendant to this claim was granted with
prejudice because Dargo did not allege any physical injury or property damage for
Negligent Misrepresentation to be actionable. Further, the court ruled that Negligent
Misrepresentation Illinois does not recognize a cause of action for negligent
misrepresentation in the employment context.
d) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
- The motion to dismiss filed by the defendant to this claim was granted with
prejudice because for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress to be
actionable, it must satisfy the exceptional requisites set for under The Illinois
Workers’ Compensation Act Preemption. Under the said act, for IIED to be
actionable, the injury caused by it should be: 1) when the injury was not
accidental; 2) when the injury did not arise from employment; 3) when the
injury was not received during the course of employment; and 4) when the
injury is not compensable under the act. Furthermore, the court ruled, to state
a cause of action for IIED under Illinois law, Dargo must allege: 1) extreme
and outrageous conduct; 2) that the actor intended that his conduct cause
severe emotional distress or at least was aware of a the high probability that
his actions may cause severe emotional distress; and 3) that the actions
actually caused severe emotional distress. None of those satisfy Dargo’s
claims.

8. What happens next: in court and/or out of court between the

parties?
ANSWER:
The court will proceed to litigate on Dargo’s claim for Intentional Misrepresentation.