MEMORANDUM



To:    L.S. II Associate

From:  Professor Sorkin

Date:  March 16, 2000

Re:    Shifrin v. Brassfield



     Although the circuit court conditionally granted our motion 

for certification of the plaintiff class in Shifrin, the court 

also granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.  We are now in 

the process of preparing our appeal of that decision.  Please 

draft a brief for submission to the Appellate Court of Illinois, 

First District, on behalf of Shifrin and the plaintiff class (as 

appellants), and submit three copies of your brief by April 20, 

2000.  Be sure that your brief complies with the Illinois 

Supreme Court Rules (see especially Rules 341-44).

     In addition, we will conduct mock oral arguments in a few 

weeks, to prepare for a possible oral argument before the court.  

A schedule for these arguments will be available soon.

          IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
              COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION


CLAUDE SHIFRIN,                   )
individually and on behalf of     )
all others similarly situated,    )
                                  )
     Plaintiffs,                  )
                                  )
          vs.                     )     No.  00C-666     
                                  )
DERRICK BRASSFIELD,               )
BRASSFIELD ENTERTAINMENT LLC,     )        TRIAL BY JURY
and AMPHITHEATRE EVENTS INC.,     )          DEMANDED
                                  )
     Defendants.                  )


                        COMPLAINT AT LAW

                   COUNT I.  MISREPRESENTATION

     1.  Plaintiff Claude Shifrin is the named plaintiff who 

brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly

situated, pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, 735

Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-801 through 806.

     2.  Defendant Derrick Brassfield is a resident of California

who regularly performs as a magician.

     3.  Defendant Brassfield Entertainment LLC is a California

corporation that acts as Derrick Brassfield's agent, manager, 

and promoter.

     4.  Defendant Amphitheatre Events Inc. is an Illinois

corporation that owns and operates the International 

Amphitheatre in Chicago, Illinois, and manages and promotes 

events held at the International Amphitheatre.

     5.  This action relates to a performance featuring Defendant

Derrick Brassfield that took place at the International

Amphitheatre on November 15, 1999.

     6.  The plaintiff class consists of the named plaintiff and 

all other persons who purchased tickets to attend the 

aforementioned Brassfield performance.

     7.  Between October 1, 1999, and November 15, 1999, 

Defendant Amphitheatre Events Inc. arranged for the publication 

of advertisements promoting the aforementioned performance in 

the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, and other newspapers of

general circulation.

     8.  Defendant Amphitheatre Events Inc. placed the

aforementioned advertisements with the knowledge of and in

concert with Defendants Derrick Brassfield and Brassfield

Entertainment LLC.

     9.  The aforementioned performance was the first event in 

the High Culture Series at the International Amphitheatre 

between November 1999 and April 2000.  The other events in the 

series were Riverdance, Cats, and Grease. 

     10.  Individual event tickets for Brassfield's performance 

were advertised at prices ranging from $25 for seats in the 

upper balcony to $55 for seats in the center section of the 

lower level.  Series tickets for the High Culture Series, 

including tickets for all four events, were advertised at prices 

ranging from $100 to $220.

     11.  Tickets could be purchased directly from the box 

office at the stated prices, or through TicketMaster with added 

service, convenience, handling, and mailing charges.  The 

tickets were nonrefundable.

     12.  The advertisements for Brassfield's performance stated 

that the best seats were reserved for purchasers of tickets for 

the entire High Culture Series, and stated further that few 

seats in the lower level would be available for individual 

ticket purchasers.

     13.  Tickets for the full High Culture Series went on sale 

on October 3, 1999, and individual tickets for Brassfield's

performance went on sale on October 15, 1999.

     14.  A total of approximately 1,500 tickets for 

Brassfield's performance were available, including individual 

and series tickets.

     15.  The available tickets for Brassfield's performance 

sold out on or about November 8, 1999.

     16.  Advertisements for Brassfield's performance stated 

that fifteen members of the audience would be randomly selected 

to participate in the show, in front of their friends and 

neighbors.

     17.  Based in part upon the representation that audience 

members would participate in the Brassfield performance, 

Plaintiff Shifrin purchased two tickets for the High Culture 

Series on October 4, 1999.

     18.  Shifrin received his tickets for the High Culture 

Series on October 15, 1999.

     19.  Shifrin's tickets for the Brassfield event were row 7, 

seats 2 and 3; his tickets for the other three events in the 

series were row 7, seats 1 and 2.

     20.  Shifrin contacted Defendant Amphitheatre Events, Inc.,

concerning the different seat locations he was assigned for the

Brassfield event, and was told that a limited number of tickets

had been held for use or distribution by the performers.

     21.  Shifrin subsequently learned that seat 1 in row 7, as 

well as several other seats throughout the lower level of the 

theater, were in fact reserved for use by employees or agents of

Brassfield Entertainment LLC who pretended to be regular members

of the audience but in fact were preselected to participate in

the performance.

     22.  During the performance on November 15, 1999, the 

Brassfield Entertainment employees or agents who served as 

ringers in the audience were in fact invited by other Brassfield 

Entertainment representatives to participate in the performance 

on stage.

     23.  No members of the audience who were not employees or 

agents of Brassfield Entertainment were invited to participate 

in the performance on stage.

     24.  The selection process for audience members to 

participate in the performance was not random as had been 

advertised, but was in actuality a complete sham. 

     25.  An article published in the Chicago Tribune on 

November 18, 1999, reported that the audience members selected 

to appear on stage during the performance were not regular 

members of the audience, but instead were ringers in the employ 

of Brassfield Entertainment.

     26.  The representation made in the advertisements for

Brassfield's performance stating that fifteen members of the

audience would be randomly selected to participate in the show,

in front of their friends and neighbors, was a false statement 

of material fact, and was known or believed to be false by the 

party making it.

     27.  The aforementioned representation was intended to 

induce members of the public to purchase tickets to the 

performance, and did in fact have the effect of inducing members 

of the plaintiff class to purchase tickets to the performance.

     28.  Plaintiffs sustained injuries as a consequence of the 

aforementioned representation in that they paid to see a 

performance that was not as advertised.

     29.  Plaintiffs further sustained injuries in that none of 

them enjoyed the opportunity to appear on stage and participate 

in the performance, despite the representation that they would 

have this opportunity.

     WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants as

follows:  an order certifying the plaintiff class, and 

appointing Claude Shifrin and his counsel to represent the 

class; compensatory damages; reasonable attorney's fees; costs 

of the action and pre-judgment interest; and any other relief 

this Court deems just.



             COUNT II.  ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND
                DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT

     30.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and realleges the

preceding Paragraphs 1 through 29.

     31.  Defendants' actions constitute an unfair or deceptive 

act or practice in violation of section 2 of the Illinois 

Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 Ill. 

Comp. Stat. 505/2.

     32.  Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs under section 10a 

of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices 

Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/10a.

     WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants as

follows:  an order certifying the plaintiff class, and 

appointing Claude Shifrin and his counsel to represent the 

class; compensatory damages; reasonable attorney's fees; costs 

of the action and pre-judgment interest; and any other relief 

this Court deems just.


Date:  March 1, 2000               ___________________________
                                   Harold T. Blackstone
                                   BLACKSTONE & KRESKIN
                                   Chicago, Illinois
                                   Attorney for the Plaintiffs




 
 
 
 
 
 

          IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
              COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION


CLAUDE SHIFRIN,                   )
individually and on behalf of     )
all others similarly situated,    )
                                  )
     Plaintiffs,                  )
                                  )
          vs.                     )         No. 00C-666
                                  )
DERRICK BRASSFIELD,               )
BRASSFIELD ENTERTAINMENT LLC,     )        TRIAL BY JURY
and AMPHITHEATRE EVENTS INC.,     )          DEMANDED
                                  )
     Defendants.                  )


                        MOTION TO DISMISS

     Come now the Defendants, Amphitheatre Events Inc. et al., 
and move this Court to dismiss this action pursuant to Section 
2-615 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, 735 Ill. Comp. 
Stat. 5/2-615, on the following grounds:

     1.  Count I of the Complaint fails to state a cause of 
action for misrepresentation because the statements made by the 
Defendants were not false statements of material fact; the 
Plaintiffs had no reasonable right to rely on such statements; 
the Plaintiffs did not in fact rely on such statements; the 
statements were not made for the purpose of inducing reliance; 
and the Plaintiffs did not sustain any injury as a result of 
such reliance.

     2.  Count II of the complaint fails to state a cause of 
action under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business 
Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505, because the statements 
in question were not a deceptive act or practice under the Act, 
were not intended to induce reliance, and were not the proximate 
cause of any injury sustained by the Plaintiffs.

Date:  March 13, 2000              ___________________________
                                   Ehrich Weiss
                                   HOUDINI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 
                                   Chicago, Illinois
                                   Attorney for the Defendants

          IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
              COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION


CLAUDE SHIFRIN,                   )
individually and on behalf of     )
all others similarly situated,    )
                                  )
     Plaintiffs,                  )
                                  )
          vs.                     )         No. 00C-666
                                  )
DERRICK BRASSFIELD,               )
BRASSFIELD ENTERTAINMENT LLC,     )        TRIAL BY JURY
and AMPHITHEATRE EVENTS INC.,     )          DEMANDED
                                  )
     Defendants.                  )


                ENTRY GRANTING ORDER TO DISMISS

Wynona, Judge.

     Derrick Brassfield and the other defendants in this class 

action seek dismissal of the complaint based upon failure to 

state a cause of action.  The plaintiffs' case is based upon an 

allegedly false statement contained in advertisements for a 

magic show.  They seek damages based upon common-law misrepre-

sentation and statutory consumer fraud.

     The advertisement was for a performance that inherently 

involves deception, and the particular statement at issue here 

related specifically to the content of that performance.  Under 

these circumstances, any reliance thereupon would not have been 

reasonable as a matter of law.  For this reason, no action lies 

under either theory put forth by the plaintiffs.

     IT IS NOW THEREFORE ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the 

plaintiffs take nothing by their complaint in this case, and the 

cause of action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted.

                             ___________________________________
                             Norman I. Wynona
                             Judge, Circuit Court of Cook County

Date:  March 15, 2000