## Facts

- Frank Serpico, age 70, shopped at a Menards store to buy supplies for his employer, including a nut worth under $0.70 and pipe wrap.
- While looking for pipe wrap and asking employees for help, Serpico put the nut in his pocket to avoid losing it.
- Serpico found the pipe wrap, paid for it at the register, and left the store without paying for the nut, allegedly by mistake.
- A Menards representative stopped Serpico, compelled him to go to a closed room, and demanded he empty his pockets; Serpico produced the nut, cash, and a receipt for the pipe wrap.
- Menards refused Serpico’s explanation, photographed him, and posted his picture on a board with photos labeled as thieves/criminals.
- Menards called police and insisted on a criminal shoplifting complaint despite a responding officer’s view that Serpico made an honest mistake and despite assurances from Serpico’s employer about his honesty and lack of motive.
- Serpico retained counsel; Menards refused to drop the charge, citing a policy of prosecuting all shoplifters.
- At the scheduled criminal trial, no Menards representative appeared, and the charge was dismissed.
- After dismissal, Menards sent Serpico civil demand letters seeking $100 and threatening suit; Serpico instead filed a civil action.

## Issues

1. Whether the pleadings stated a claim for false arrest/false imprisonment under Illinois law, given potential defenses of probable cause and statutory shopkeeper’s privilege.
2. Whether the pleadings stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the detention, public posting of Serpico’s photo, insistence on prosecution, and post-dismissal civil demands.
3. Whether Menards’ alleged policy of aggressively pursuing criminal charges and civil demand letters against alleged shoplifters stated a private cause of action under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA).

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part Menards’ Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings.
- The motion was denied as to false arrest/false imprisonment, because the pleadings sufficiently alleged unlawful restraint and factual disputes remained on reasonable grounds, privilege, and reasonableness of the detention.
- The motion was denied as to IIED, because the alleged course of conduct could be found extreme and outrageous and severe distress was adequately pleaded at this stage.
- The motion was granted as to the ICFA claim, which was dismissed for failure to plead a cognizable deceptive or unfair practice claim tied to consumer-protection concerns and actual damages as required by the statute.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(c) motion, well-pleaded factual allegations are taken as true, and dismissal is improper if the pleadings plausibly state a claim.
- Under Illinois law, false imprisonment requires restraint without legal justification; probable cause focuses on what the accuser reasonably believed, and the accused’s actual guilt is not determinative.
- Illinois shopkeeper privilege defenses generally turn on fact questions, including whether the merchant had reasonable grounds and whether the detention was reasonable in manner and duration.
- IIED in Illinois requires (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intent or reckless disregard of causing distress, and (3) severe emotional distress; whether conduct is sufficiently outrageous is often for the jury when adequately pleaded.
- A private ICFA claim requires a deceptive act or unfair practice in trade or commerce, intent that the plaintiff rely, proximate causation, and actual damages; allegations of a private dispute and individualized harm, without a properly pleaded deceptive or statutorily unfair practice harming consumers, are insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court held that Serpico’s allegations, if true, could support tort liability for false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but they did not state a viable ICFA consumer-fraud claim; accordingly, the tort counts survived and the statutory count was dismissed at the pleadings stage.


Serpico v. Menard, Inc., 927 F. Supp. 276 (N.D. Ill. 1996)