Franklin Jr. v. Karyn's Cooked Inc. et al

FPDOCS 30934671.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION MARY MIZERK, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) Case No.: 15-cv-7131 v. ) ) LASALLE FLOWERS, INC. and ) 731 LASALLE LLC, ) ) Defendants. ) NOTICE OF REMOVAL Defendants LaSalle Flowers, Inc. (LaSalle Flowers) and 731 LaSalle LLC (collectively,

Defendants), by and through their attorneys, Steve A. Miller and Scott C. Fanning of Fisher &

Phillips LLP, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1441, and 1446, file this Notice of Removal to transfer

this cause from the Circuit Court of Cook County, State of Illinois, in which it is now pending as Case

No. 2015-L-007231, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In support

of their Notice of Removal, Defendants state as follows:

1. This civil action, entitled Mary Mizerk v. LaSalle Flowers, Inc., et al., was filed on

July 16, 2015,1 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, State of Illinois, bearing Case No. 2015-L-

007231. Defendants counsel was provided a copy of the Complaint on July 16, 2015 via an e-mail

1 Note that between May 12, 2015 and June 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed two additional ADA Title III cases in the Northern District of Illinois and the Circuit Court of Cook County. Additionally, between April 30, 2015 and August 11, 2015, Plaintiffs counsel filed Fifteen ADA Title III cases in the Northern District of Illinois and Circuit Court of Cook County. Defendants raise this issue because, despite its laudable purposes, Title III of the ADA has often been subject to abuse. See, e.g., Molski v. Kahn Winery, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1164-1168 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (holding that litigation history is relevant in determining standing); Brother v. Miami Hotel Inv.s, LTD., 341 F. Supp. 2d 1230, 1233 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (commenting on the proliferation of ADA Title III lawsuits and abuse of Title III to collect attorneys fees); Rodriguez v. Investco, LLC, 305 F. Supp. 2d 1278, 1281 (M.D. Fla. 2004) (noting the birth of a cottage industry).

Case: 1:15-cv-07131 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/14/15 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:1Case: 1:15-cv-03800 Document #: 18-2 Filed: 09/02/15 Page 1 of 64 PageID #:177Case: 1:15-cv-07716 Document #: 6-2 Filed: 09/02/15 Page 1 of 64 PageID #:93

- 2 - FPDOCS 30934671.1

by Plaintiffs counsel John Steele. The Complaint and Summons have not been served upon

Defendants. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(a), a copy of all pleadings sent to Defendants is attached

as Exhibit A. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(b), this Notice of Removal is timely, as it was filed within

thirty days after Defendants first were provided a copy of the Complaint.

2. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges that she suffers from a disability and was purportedly

denied access to LaSalle Flowers shop on May 6, 2015 due to an architectural barrier. See Exhibit

A, Complaint.2

3. Plaintiffs Complaint is removable to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and

1441(a) because of federal question jurisdiction; Plaintiff is asserting a cause of action arising under

the laws of the United States, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12181, et

seq. See Compl. 24-32.

4. The remainder of Plaintiffs claims are removable to federal court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1441(c). In addition, Plaintiffs Illinois state law claims are based on the same alleged visit

to LaSalle Flowers shop and the exact same set of operative facts. See Compl. 12-23, 33.

5. Moreover, the joinder and removal of Plaintiffs Illinois state law claims will be in

the interests of judicial economy as it will allow this matter to be resolved at one time, instead of

through companion litigation before this Court and a Illinois state court.

8. Removal to this particular venue is proper because Cook County, State of Illinois, is

located within the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

2 Plaintiffs Complainant will be cited to hereinafter as Compl. __.


- 3 - FPDOCS 30934671.1

9. This Notice of Removal will be filed promptly with the state court, as required by 28

U.S.C. 1446(d).

10. By copy of this document and in accordance with the Certificate of Service,

Defendants are providing notice to all parties in this action of the filing of this Notice of Removal.

WHEREFORE, Defendants give notice of the removal of this action from Cook County

Circuit Court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Dated: August 14, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

By: s/ Steve A. Miller Steve A. Miller Scott C. Fanning FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 10 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3450 Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 346-8061 Phone (312) 346-3179 Facsimile [email protected] [email protected]


- 4 - FPDOCS 30934671.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that, on August 14, 2015, I filed the foregoing Notice of Removal with the Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois and caused a copy of same to be service via First Class U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, upon:

John Steele Accessibility Law Group

500 Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Chicago, Illinois 60611

s/ Steve A. Miller Attorney for Defendants

LaSalle Flowers, Inc. and 731 LaSalle LLC


EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:15-cv-07131 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/14/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:5Case: 1:15-cv-03800 Document #: 18-2 Filed: 09/02/15 Page 5 of 64 PageID #:181Case: 1:15-cv-07716 Document #: 6-2 Filed: 09/02/15 Page 5 of 64 PageID #:97

- 1 -

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

MARY MIZERK, Plaintiff, v. LASALLE FLOWERS, INC.; and 731 LASALLE LLC,

Defendants.

Case No. _______________

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Mary Mizerk, by and through the undersigned counsel, brings this action against

Defendants LaSalle Flowers, Inc., an Illinois business corporation; and 731 LaSalle LLC, an Illi-

nois limited liability company, for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.

12181, et seq. (the ADA) and its implementing regulations, and the Illinois Human Rights

Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101, et seq. (the IHRA) and alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendants for failing to design,

construct, and/or own or operate facilities that are fully accessible to, and independently usable

by, persons with disabilities. Defendants have failed to remove architectural barriers at the retail

shop known as La Salle Flowers, even though such removal is readily achievable.

2. The violations alleged in this complaint occurred at the retail flower shop known

as La Salle Flowers, located at 731 N La Salle Drive, Chicago, IL 60654.

3. Defendants failure to provide equal access to La Salle Flowers violates the

mandates of the ADA and IHRA to provide full and equal enjoyment of a public accommoda-

tions goods, services, facilities, privileges, and advantages.

4. Defendants conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of the law.

Defendant LaSalle Flowers, Inc. was given advance notice that its facilities contained accessibil-

ELECTRONICALLY FILED7/16/2015 11:45 AM7/16/2015 11:45 AM7/16/2015 11:45 AM7/16/2015 11:45 AM2015-L-0072312015-L-0072312015-L-0072312015-L-007231CALENDAR: APAGE 1 of 9CIRCUIT COURT OFCOOK COUNTY, ILLINOISLAW DIVISIONCLERK DOROTHY BROWN


- 2 -

ity barriers through a letter sent on May 13, 2015, prior to the initiation of the instant suit for re-

lief. Despite being given notice, Defendants have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to

remedy the discriminatory barriers at their facilities.

5. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Defendants facilities violate feder-

al law and an injunction requiring Defendants to make modifications to the facilities so that they

are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with disabilities. Plaintiff further

requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over this matter for a period to be determined to ensure

that Defendants continue to comply with the requirements of the ADA and IHRA.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to Title III of the

ADA, and for damages, civil penalties, and injunctive relief pursuant to the IHRA. This Court

has concurrent jurisdiction over the federal cause of action and has original jurisdiction over the

state cause of action pursuant to 775 ILCS 5/10-102.

7. Venue in this judicial district is proper pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-101 because De-

fendants are located and transact business within this judicial district and have sufficient contacts

to be subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district, and because this is the judicial dis-

trict in which the acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff Mary Mizerk is a resident of the city of Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiff Miz-

erk suffers from, and all times relevant hereto has suffered from, a legal disability as defined by

the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12102(2), and the IHRA, 775 ILCS 5/1-103(I).

9. Plaintiff Mary Mizerk suffers from osteoarthritis. She is substantially limited in

performing several major life activities, including but not limited to walking and standing. She is

required to use wheelchair for mobility. As a person with a disability, she has a personal interest

in having full and equal access to places of public accommodation and to the goods, services,

facilities, privileges, advantages or other things offered therein.

ELEC

TRON

ICAL

LY FI

LED

7/16/2

015 1

1:45 A

M7/1

6/201

5 11:4

5 AM

7/16/2

015 1

1:45 A

M7/1

6/201

5 11:4

5 AM

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

PAGE

2 of

9


- 3 -

10. Defendant LaSalle Flowers, Inc., an Illinois business corporation, is the operator

of the real property and improvements which are the subject of this action, the retail flower shop,

La Salle Flowers, a place of public accommodation within the meaning of the ADA and ILCS,

located at the street address of 731 N La Salle Drive, Chicago, IL 60654.

11. Defendant 731 LaSalle LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, is the owner of

the real property and improvements which are the subject of this action, the retail flower shop,

La Salle Flowers, a place of public accommodation within the meaning of the ADA and ILCS,

located at the street address of 731 N La Salle Drive, Chicago, IL 60654.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

12. On or around May 6, 2015, Plaintiff Mizerk attempted to visit La Salle Flowers,

which is located approximately three city blocks from her apartment.

13. Upon arrival, Plaintiff Mizerk could not find an accessible entrance.

14. The doorway at the front entrance to La Salle Flowers was approximately five

inches above the sidewalk level. A photograph in Exhibit A to this Complaint shows the door-

way of the entrance to La Salle Flowers.

15. No signage indicated the existence of an accessible entrance or a route to an ac-

cessible entrance from the inaccessible front entrance.

16. In light of the architectural barriers at La Salle Flowers, Plaintiff Mizerk is de-

terred from visiting La Salle Flowers in the future. She is unable to enter La Salle Flowers.

Plaintiff Mizerk would like to be able to patronize La Salle Flowers, but these architectural

barriers deter her from doing so. She plans to return and patronize La Salle Flowers when she

learns that the premises have been made fully accessible to persons who use wheelchairs for mo-

bility.

17. Plaintiff Mizerk attempted to access Defendants premises, but could not do so

independently on a full and equal basis because of her disabilities, due to the physical barriers to

access and violations of the ADA and IHRA that exist at Defendants premises. As a result of

Defendants non-compliance with the ADA and IHRA, Plaintiff Mizerk cannot independently

ELEC

TRON

ICAL

LY FI

LED

7/16/2

015 1

1:45 A

M7/1

6/201

5 11:4

5 AM

7/16/2

015 1

1:45 A

M7/1

6/201

5 11:4

5 AM

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

PAGE

3 of

9


- 4 -

access the facilities and/or is excluded from full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,

privileges, advantages, and/or accommodations offered therein.

FACT ALLEGATIONS

18. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff Mizerk on the basis of her disabil-

ities by failing to comply with the requirements of the ADA, the Americans With Disabilities

Act Accessibility Guidelines (the ADAAG) and the ILCS with regard to La Salle Flowers. A

specific, though not exclusive, list of unlawful physical barriers and violations present at La

Salle Flowers which limit the ability of persons in wheelchairs to access the facilities and/or to

enjoy the goods, services, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations offered therein on a

full and equal basis, includes the following:

a. La Salle Flowers does not have an accessible public entrance, in violation of

ADAAG 206.4.1.

b. The La Salle Flowers public entrance has a change in level greater than half an

inch but does not have a ramp, in violation of ADAAG 404.2.5 and 303.4.

c. To the extent that La Salle Flowers has an accessible entrance, the entrance is

not marked as accessible, in violation of ADAAG 216.6.

d. To the extent that La Salle Flowers has an accessible entrance, the route from

the inaccessible entrance to the accessible entrance (if any), is not marked with di-

rectional signage, in violation of ADAAG 216.6

19. The above listing is not to be considered all-inclusive of the barriers and viola-

tions of the ADA and ILCS encountered by Plaintiff or which exist at La Salle Flowers.

20. In order to fully remedy the discriminatory conditions, Plaintiff requires an in-

spection of La Salle Flowers in order to photograph and measure all such barriers to access and

violations of the ADA, the ADAAG and the ILCS.

21. Compliance with the ADA standards and the ADAAG is required by 42 U.S.C

12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) because removal of architectural barriers is readily achievable. Compliance

with the ADA standards and the ADAAG is readily achievable by Defendants due to the lack of

ELEC

TRON

ICAL

LY FI

LED

7/16/2

015 1

1:45 A

M7/1

6/201

5 11:4

5 AM

7/16/2

015 1

1:45 A

M7/1

6/201

5 11:4

5 AM

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

PAGE

4 of

9


- 5 -

difficulty and low cost of remedying the above-listed barriers. Some of the above-listed viola-

tions can be remedied through the same measures prescribed by federal regulation as examples

of modifications that are readily achievable, including, but not limited to, installing ramps. 28

C.F.R. 36.304(b). Even if installing a permanent ramp would not be readily achievable, De-

fendants could comply with federal standards by employing a portable ramp. 28 C.F.R.

36.304(e).

22. As a person with a disability, Plaintiff Mizerk has a personal interest in having

full and equal access to places of public accommodation and to the goods, services, facilities,

privileges, advantages or other things offered therein.

23. Without injunctive relief, Defendants failure to remove accessibility barriers will

continue to cause injury to Plaintiff, who will continue to be deterred from patronizing the facili-

ty and will continue to be unable to independently access La Salle Flowers and/or to enjoy the

goods, services, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations offered therein on a full and

equal basis, in violation of her rights under the ADA.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.

24. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges the above paragraphs.

25. Section 302(a) of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., provides:

No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disabil-ity in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.

26. Under Section 302(b)(1) of Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to

deny individuals with disabilities an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, ser-

vices, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations that is equal to the opportunities af-

forded to other individuals.

ELEC

TRON

ICAL

LY FI

LED

7/16/2

015 1

1:45 A

M7/1

6/201

5 11:4

5 AM

7/16/2

015 1

1:45 A

M7/1

6/201

5 11:4

5 AM

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

PAGE

5 of

9


- 6 -

27. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff and others in that they failed to

make their place of public accommodation fully accessible to persons with disabilities on a full

and equal basis in violation of 42 U.S.C. 12182(a) and the regulations promulgated thereunder,

including the ADAAG, as described above. Plaintiff Mizerk has been denied full and equal ac-

cess to La Salle Flowers and/or has been denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit

from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations on a full and

equal basis.

28. Defendants have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their

discriminatory conduct. Defendants violations of the ADA and ADAAG are ongoing.

29. Defendants have failed to remove architectural barriers to full and equal access by

Plaintiff Mizerk, even though removing the barriers is readily achievable.

30. Plaintiff Mizerk plans to visit La Salle Flowers again in the near future. Plaintiff

is without adequate remedy at law, has suffered and is suffering irreparable harm, and reasonably

anticipates that she will continue to suffer irreparable harm upon her planned return visit to La

Salle Flowers unless and until Defendants are required to remove the physical barriers to access

and ADA violations that exist at Defendants place of public accommodation, including those set

forth specifically herein.

31. This Court has authority under 42 U.S.C. 12188 to grant Plaintiff injunctive re-

lief, including an order requiring Defendants to make La Salle Flowers readily accessible to

and independently usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA and

ADAAG, and/or to close La Salle Flowers until such time as Defendants cure the access barri-

ers.

32. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel for the filing and prosecution of this

action, and is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees, litigation expenses and costs from

Defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12205, 12117, and 28 C.F.R. 36.505.

ELEC

TRON

ICAL

LY FI

LED

7/16/2

015 1

1:45 A

M7/1

6/201

5 11:4

5 AM

7/16/2

015 1

1:45 A

M7/1

6/201

5 11:4

5 AM

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

PAGE

6 of

9


- 7 -

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violations of the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq.


34. 775 ILCS 5/5-102 provides:

It is a civil rights violation for any person on the basis of unlawful discrimination to: Deny or refuse to another the full and equal en-joyment of the facilities, goods, and services of any public place of accommodation.



and equal basis in violation of the IHRA, as described above. Plaintiff Mizerk has been denied

full and equal access to La Salle Flowers and/or has been denied the opportunity to participate

in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations on a

full and equal basis.


discriminatory conduct. Defendants violations of the IHRA are ongoing.


Plaintiff Mizerk, even though removing the barriers is readily achievable.

38. Plaintiff Mizerk plans to visit La Salle Flowers again in the near future. Plaintiff

is without adequate remedy at law, has suffered and is suffering irreparable harm, and reasonably

anticipates that she will continue to suffer irreparable harm upon her planned return visit to La

Salle Flowers unless and until Defendants are required to remove the physical barriers to access



39. This Court has authority under the IHRA to grant Plaintiff injunctive relief, in-

cluding an order requiring Defendants to make La Salle Flowers readily accessible to and in-

dependently usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the IHRA, and/or to

close La Salle Flowers until such time as Defendants cure the access barriers.

ELEC

TRON

ICAL

LY FI

LED

7/16/2

015 1

1:45 A

M7/1

6/201

5 11:4

5 AM

7/16/2

015 1

1:45 A

M7/1

6/201

5 11:4

5 AM

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

PAGE

7 of

9


- 8 -



Defendants, pursuant to 775 ILCS 5/10-102.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:

a. That the Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that Defendants fa-

cilities, at the commencement of the instant suit, are in violation of Title III of the

ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12181, et seq., and the relevant implementing regulations in-

cluding the ADAAG, and the IHRA.

b. That the Court issue a permanent injunction, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12188(a)(2),

28 C.F.R. 36.504(a) and 775 ILCS 5/10-102 enjoining Defendants from contin-

uing their discriminatory practices, including an order directing Defendants to

make all readily achievable alterations to their facilities so as to remove physical

barriers to access and make their facilities fully accessible to and independently

usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA and the

IHRA; and also including an order requiring Defendants to make all reasonable

modifications in policies, practices or procedures necessary to afford all offered

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to individu-

als with disabilities on a full and equal basis.

c. That the Court award Plaintiff actual and punitive damages to be paid by Defend-

ants pursuant to 775 ILCS 5/10-102(C)(1).

d. That the Court award Plaintiff her reasonable attorneys fees, litigation expenses,

and costs of suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12205, 28 C.F.R. 36.505 and 775 ILCS

5/10-102(C)(2), or as otherwise provided by law; and

e. That the Court issue such other relief as it deems just and proper, and/or is allow-

able under Title III of the ADA or the IHRA.

ELEC

TRON

ICAL

LY FI

LED

7/16/2

015 1

1:45 A

M7/1

6/201

5 11:4

5 AM

7/16/2

015 1

1:45 A

M7/1

6/201

5 11:4

5 AM

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

PAGE

8 of

9


- 9 -

DATED: July 16, 2015

/s/ John Steele John L. Steele (# 44190) ACCESSIBILITY LAW GROUP 500 Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Chicago, Illinois 60611 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (312) 396-4154

ELEC

TRON

ICAL

LY FI

LED

7/16/2

015 1

1:45 A

M7/1

6/201

5 11:4

5 AM

7/16/2

015 1

1:45 A

M7/1

6/201

5 11:4

5 AM

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

PAGE

9 of

9


EXHIBIT A

ELECTRONICALLY FILED7/16/2015 11:45 AM7/16/2015 11:45 AM7/16/2015 11:45 AM7/16/2015 11:45 AM2015-L-0072312015-L-0072312015-L-0072312015-L-007231CALENDAR: APAGE 1 of 2CIRCUIT COURT OFCOOK COUNTY, ILLINOISLAW DIVISIONCLERK DOROTHY BROWN


ELEC

TRON

ICAL

LY FI

LED

7/16/2

015 1

1:45 A

M7/1

6/201

5 11:4

5 AM

7/16/2

015 1

1:45 A

M7/1

6/201

5 11:4

5 AM

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

2015

-L-00

7231

PAGE

2 of

2


_____________________________________________

2120 - Served

(2/18/11) CCG N001

2220 - Not Served2320 - Served By Mail2420 - Served By Publication

2121 - Served2221 - Not Served

2421 - Served By Publication2321 - Served By Mail

CHICAGO, IL 60601

5600 Old Orchard Rd.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOISCOUNTY DEPARTMENT,

v.

No.

DIVISION

(Name all parties)

To each Defendant:

YOU ARE SUMMONED and required to file an answer to the complaint in this case, a copy of which ishereto attached, or otherwise file your appearance, and pay the required fee, in the Office of the Clerk of this Court at thefollowing location:

,Chicago, Illinois 60602Richard J. Daley Center, 50 W. Washington, Room

District 2 - Skokie

Skokie, IL 60077 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

District 3 - Rolling Meadows2121 Euclid 1500 Maybrook Ave.

District 4 - Maywood

Maywood, IL 60153

Markham, IL 60426

District 5 - Bridgeview

Bridgeview, IL 6045510220 S. 76th Ave.

District 6 - Markham16501 S. Kedzie Pkwy. 28 North Clark St., Room 200

Child Support

Chicago, Illinois 60602

You must file within 30 days after service of this Summons, not counting the day of service.IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO, A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE RELIEFREQUESTED IN THE COMPLAINT.

To the officer:

This Summons must be returned by the officer or other person to whom it was given for service, with endorsement

This Summons may not be served later than 30 days after its date.of service and fees, if any, immediately after service. If service cannot be made, this Summons shall be returned so endorsed.

Atty. No.:__________________

Name: ________________________________________________

Address: ______________________________________________

Atty. for: ______________________________________________

Telephone: _____________________________________________

City/State/Zip: __________________________________________Date of service: _______________________, __________

Clerk of Court

WITNESS, __________________________, ____________

(To be inserted by officer on copy left with defendantor other person)

Service by Facsimile Transmission will be accepted at: ________________________________________________________________(Area Code) (Facsimile Telephone Number)

44190

STEELE LAW FIRM LLC

MARY MIZERK

161 N CLARK #3200

(312) 893-5888

Thursday, 16 July 2015

/s DOROTHY BROWN

LAW

MARY MIZERK2015-L-007231

801

Summons

Defendant Address:LASALLE FLOWERS, INC.731 N. LASALLE FLOWER SHOPCHICAGO, IL 60654

SUMMONS ALIAS - SUMMONS


LASALLE FLOWERS, INC.

/s DOROTHY BROWN, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS


_____________________________________________

2120 - Served

(2/18/11) CCG N001

2220 - Not Served2320 - Served By Mail2420 - Served By Publication

2121 - Served2221 - Not Served

2421 - Served By Publication2321 - Served By Mail

CHICAGO, IL 60601

5600 Old Orchard Rd.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOISCOUNTY DEPARTMENT,

v.

No.

DIVISION

(Name all parties)

To each Defendant:

YOU ARE SUMMONED and required to file an answer to the complaint in this case, a copy of which ishereto attached, or otherwise file your appearance, and pay the required fee, in the Office of the Clerk of this Court at thefollowing location:

,Chicago, Illinois 60602Richard J. Daley Center, 50 W. Washington, Room

District 2 - Skokie

Skokie, IL 60077 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

District 3 - Rolling Meadows2121 Euclid 1500 Maybrook Ave.

District 4 - Maywood

Maywood, IL 60153

Markham, IL 60426

District 5 - Bridgeview

Bridgeview, IL 6045510220 S. 76th Ave.

District 6 - Markham16501 S. Kedzie Pkwy. 28 North Clark St., Room 200

Child Support

Chicago, Illinois 60602

You must file within 30 days after service of this Summons, not counting the day of service.IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO, A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE RELIEFREQUESTED IN THE COMPLAINT.

To the officer:

This Summons must be returned by the officer or other person to whom it was given for service, with endorsement

This Summons may not be served later than 30 days after its date.of service and fees, if any, immediately after service. If service cannot be made, this Summons shall be returned so endorsed.

Atty. No.:__________________

Name: ________________________________________________

Address: ______________________________________________

Atty. for: ______________________________________________

Telephone: _____________________________________________

City/State/Zip: __________________________________________Date of service: _______________________, __________

Clerk of Court

WITNESS, __________________________, ____________

(To be inserted by officer on copy left with defendantor other person)

Service by Facsimile Transmission will be accepted at: ________________________________________________________________(Area Code) (Facsimile Telephone Number)

44190

STEELE LAW FIRM LLC

MARY MIZERK

161 N CLARK #3200

(312) 893-5888

Thursday, 16 July 2015

/s DOROTHY BROWN

LAW

MARY MIZERK2015-L-007231

801

Summons

Defendant Address:731 LASALLE LLC122 W. SUPERIOR ST.CHICAGO, IL 60654



731 LASALLE LLC

/s DOROTHY BROWN, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS


- 1 -


EDDIE DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. DENTAL EXPERTS, LLC; and KS REAL PROPERTIES, LLC,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Eddie Davis, by and through the undersigned counsel, brings this action against

Dental Experts, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company doing business as Dental Dreams,

LLC; and KS Real Properties, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, for violations of the

Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12181, et seq. (the ADA) and its implementing

regulations, and the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101, et seq. (the IHRA) and al-

leges as follows:

INTRODUCTION



by, persons with disabilities. Defendants have failed to remove architectural barriers at the dental

clinic known as Dental Dreams, even though such removal is readily achievable.

2. The violations alleged in this complaint occurred at the dental clinic known as

Dental Dreams, located at 3057 W Cermak Rd, Chicago, IL 60623.

3. Defendants failure to provide equal access to Dental Dreams violates the man-

dates of the ADA and IHRA to provide full and equal enjoyment of a public accommodations

goods, services, facilities, privileges, and advantages.


- 2 -


Defendants have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy the discriminatory bar-

riers at their facilities.







6. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. 1331. Jurisdiction of this

Court arises under 28 U.S.C. 1331. This action includes federal law claims brought pursuant

to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 1218112189, and for damages,

civil penalties, and injunctive relief pursuant to the IHRA. This Court may exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs nonfederal law causes of action, violations of the IHRA, because the

claims asserted in this action arise from a common nucleus of operative fact. The Court has the

jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and Fed R. Civ. P. 57.

7. Venue in this judicial district is proper because Defendants are located and trans-

act business within this judicial district and have sufficient contacts to be subject to personal ju-

risdiction in this judicial district, and because this is the judicial district in which the acts and

omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff Eddie Davis is a resident of the city of Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiff Davis

suffers from, and all times relevant hereto has suffered from, a legal disability as defined by the

ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12102(2), and the IHRA, 775 ILCS 5/1-103(I).

9. Plaintiff Eddie Davis suffers from chronic arthritis in both legs and shoulders. He

is substantially limited in performing several major life activities, including but not limited to


- 3 -

walking and standing. He is required to use wheelchair for mobility. As a person with a disabil-

ity, he has a personal interest in having full and equal access to places of public accommodation

and to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or other things offered therein.

10. Defendant KS Real Properties, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, is the

owner of the real property and improvements which are the subject of this action, the dental clin-

ic Dental Dreams, a place of public accommodation within the meaning of the ADA, located at

the street address of 3057 W Cermak Rd, Chicago, IL 60623.

11. Defendant Dental Experts, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company doing busi-

ness as Dental Dreams, LLC, is the operator of the real property and improvements which are the

subject of this action, the dental clinic Dental Dreams, a place of public accommodation within

the meaning of the ADA, located at the street address of 3057 W Cermak Rd, Chicago, IL

60623.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

12. On or around July 14, 2015, Plaintiff Davis attempted to visit Dental Dreams,

which is located approximately 2.5 miles from his apartment.

13. Upon arrival, Plaintiff Davis could not find an accessible parking space in the

Dental Dreams customer parking lot. Despite having approximately ten parking spaces, the

customer parking lot had no accessible parking spaces. A photograph in Exhibit A to this Com-

plaint shows the parking lot of Dental Dreams.

14. The main public entrance facing Cermak Road was situated approximately four

inches above the height of the sidewalk. The doorway and sidewalk levels were connected by a

concrete step approximately three feet deep that extended the length of the building. A photo-

graph in Exhibit B to this Complaint shows the Cermak Road public entrance of Dental

Dreams. No ramps provided an alternate way to bridge the change in level.

15. No signage at the Cermak Road public entrance indicated the presence of or di-

rected customers to an accessible entrance.


- 4 -

16. A second entrance to Dental Dreams, facing Albany Avenue, was accessible

through the Dental Dreams parking lot, where a ramp connected the lower parking lot level to

the higher sidewalk level. No signage at this entrance indicated that this was an accessible en-

trance.

17. In light of the architectural barriers at Dental Dreams, Plaintiff Davis is deterred

from visiting Dental Dreams in the future. Plaintiff Davis would like to be able to patronize

Dental Dreams, but these architectural barriers deter him from doing so. He plans to return and

patronize Dental Dreams when he learns that the premises have been made fully accessible to

persons who use wheelchairs for mobility.

18. Plaintiff Davis attempted to access Defendants premises, but could not do so in-

dependently on a full and equal basis because of his disabilities, due to the physical barriers to

access and violations of the ADA that exist at Defendants premises. As a result of Defendants

non-compliance with the ADA, Plaintiff Davis cannot independently access the facilities and/or

is excluded from full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, privileges, advantages, and/or

accommodations offered therein.

FACT ALLEGATIONS

19. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff Davis on the basis of his disabili-

ties by failing to comply with the requirements of the ADA, the Americans With Disabilities Act

Accessibility Guidelines (the ADAAG) and the ILCS with regard to Dental Dreams. A spe-

cific, though not exclusive, list of unlawful physical barriers and violations present at Dental

Dreams which limit the ability of persons in wheelchairs to access the facilities and/or to enjoy

the goods, services, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations offered therein on a full and

equal basis, includes the following:

a. Dental Dreams has approximately ten parking spaces in its parking lot but does

not have an accessible parking space, in violation of ADAAG 208.2.

b. The Cermak Road entrance of Dental Dreams was inaccessible but did not pro-

vide directional signage to an accessible entrance, in violation of ADAAG 216.6.


- 5 -

c. Not all entrances to Dental Dreams were accessible, but the accessible entranc-

es were not identified through signage, in violation of ADAAG 216.6.


tions of the ADA and ILCS encountered by Plaintiff or which exist at Dental Dreams.


spection of Dental Dreams in order to photograph and measure all such barriers to access and








C.F.R. 36.304(b).

23. As a person with a disability, Plaintiff Davis has a personal interest in having full

and equal access to places of public accommodation and to the goods, services, facilities, privi-

leges, advantages or other things offered therein.



ty and will continue to be unable to independently access Dental Dreams and/or to enjoy the


equal basis, in violation of his rights under the ADA.





- 6 -









including the ADAAG, as described above. Plaintiff Davis has been denied full and equal access

to Dental Dreams and/or has been denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations on a full and equal basis.



30. Defendants have failed to remove architectural barriers to full and equal access

encountered by Plaintiff Davis, even though removing the barriers is readily achievable.

31. Plaintiff Davis plans to visit the tenant businesses of Dental Dreams again in

the near future. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law, has suffered and is suffering irrepa-

rable harm, and reasonably anticipates that he will continue to suffer irreparable harm upon his

planned return visit to Dental Dreams unless and until Defendants are required to remove the

physical barriers to access and ADA violations that exist at Defendants place of public accom-

modation, including those set forth specifically herein.


lief, including an order requiring Defendants to make Dental Dreams readily accessible to and

independently usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA and


- 7 -

ADAAG, and/or to close Dental Dreams until such time as Defendants cure the access barri-

ers.










and equal basis in violation of the IHRA, as described above. Plaintiff Davis has been denied full

and equal access to Dental Dreams and/or has been denied the opportunity to participate in or

benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations on a full

and equal basis.




Plaintiff Davis, even though removing the barriers is readily achievable.

39. Plaintiff Davis plans to visit Dental Dreams again in the near future. Plaintiff is

without adequate remedy at law, has suffered and is suffering irreparable harm, and reasonably

anticipates that he will continue to suffer irreparable harm upon his planned return visit to Den-

tal Dreams unless and until Defendants are required to remove the physical barriers to access


- 8 -




cluding an order requiring Defendants to make Dental Dreams readily accessible to and inde-

pendently usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the IHRA, and/or to

close Dental Dreams until such time as Defendants cure the access barriers.






















- 9 -

d. That the Court award Plaintiff his reasonable attorneys fees, litigation expenses,





DATED: August 11, 2015



EXHIBIT A


EXHIBIT B


- 1 -


EDDIE DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. ROYAL DENTAL LA VILLITA, P.C.; RICHARD HAE DONG PARK aka HAE DONG PARK; and SANDY MISUN PARK aka MI SUN PARK,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT


Defendants Royal Dental La Villita, P.C., an Illinois business corporation; Richard Hae Dong

Park aka Hae Dong Park, an individual; and Sandy Misun Park aka Mi Sun Park, an individual,

for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12181, et seq. (the ADA)

and its implementing regulations, and the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101, et seq.

(the IHRA) and alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION



by, persons with disabilities. Defendants have failed to remove architectural barriers at the dental

clinic known as Royal Dental, even though such removal is readily achievable.

2. The violations alleged in this complaint occurred at the dental clinic known as

Royal Dental, located at 3142 W Cermak Rd, Chicago, IL 60623.

3. Defendants failure to provide equal access to Royal Dental violates the man-

dates of the ADA and IHRA to provide full and equal enjoyment of a public accommodations

goods, services, facilities, privileges, and advantages.


- 2 -





















PARTIES







- 3 -




10. Defendants Richard Hae Dong Park aka Hae Dong Park, an individual; and Sandy

Misun Park aka Mi Sun Park, an individual, are the owners of the real property and improve-

ments which are the subject of this action, the dental clinic, Royal Dental, a place of public

accommodation within the meaning of the ADA, located at the street address of 3142 W Cermak

Rd, Chicago, IL 60623.

11. Defendant Royal Dental La Villita, P.C, an Illinois business corporation, is the

lessee and operator of the real property and improvements which are the subject of this action,

the dental clinic Royal Dental, a place of public accommodation within the meaning of the

ADA, located at the street address of 3142 W Cermak Rd, Chicago, IL 60623.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

12. On or around July 14, 2015, Plaintiff Davis attempted to visit Royal Dental,

which is located approximately 2.5 miles from his apartment.

13. Plaintiff Davis is a patient of Royal Dental and has used the dental services of

Royal Dental in the past.

14. Upon arrival, Plaintiff Davis could not find an accessible public entrance into

Royal Dental. A step constituting a change in level of approximately six inches separated the

doorway from the sidewalk. No ramp alternative provided access for persons who use wheel-

chairs. A photograph in exhibit A to this Complaint shows the change in level at the doorway of

the public entrance to Royal Dental.

15. Plaintiff Davis could have attempted to gain access to the building by accepting

assistance from Royal Dental staff to enter the building and leaving his wheelchair on the

sidewalk during the clinic visit. Plaintiff Davis was reluctant to do so, however, because a friend

of his who is also a patient of Royal Dental and uses a wheelchair for mobility left his wheel-

chair on the sidewalk only to have it stolen while inside the dental clinic.


- 4 -

16. In light of the architectural barriers at Royal Dental, Plaintiff Davis is deterred

from visiting Royal Dental in the future. Plaintiff Davis would like to be able to patronize

Royal Dental, but these architectural barriers deter him from doing so. He plans to return and

patronize Royal Dental when he learns that the premises have been made fully accessible to

persons who use wheelchairs for mobility.







FACT ALLEGATIONS



Accessibility Guidelines (the ADAAG) and the ILCS with regard to Royal Dental. A specif-

ic, though not exclusive, list of unlawful physical barriers and violations present at Royal Den-

tal which limit the ability of persons in wheelchairs to access the facilities and/or to enjoy the


equal basis, includes the following:

a. The public entrance to Royal Dental has a change in level greater than half an

inch with no ramp alternative, in violation of ADAAG 404.2.5.

b. Royal Dental does not have an accessible public entrance, in violation of

ADAAG 206.4.1.


tions of the ADA and ILCS encountered by Plaintiff Davis or which exist at Royal Dental.


- 5 -


spection of Royal Dental in order to photograph and measure all such barriers to access and








C.F.R. 36.304(b).

22. As a person with a disability, Plaintiff Davis has a personal interest in having full

and equal access to places of public accommodation and to the goods, services, facilities, privi-

leges, advantages or other things offered therein.



ty and will continue to be unable to independently access Royal Dental and/or to enjoy the


equal basis, in violation of his rights under the ADA.






- 6 -








including the ADAAG, as described above. Plaintiff Davis has been denied full and equal access

to Royal Dental and/or has been denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations on a full and equal basis.





30. Plaintiff Davis plans to visit Royal Dental again in the near future. Plaintiff is


anticipates that he will continue to suffer irreparable harm upon his planned return visit to Roy-

al Dental unless and until Defendants are required to remove the physical barriers to access and

ADA violations that exist at Defendants place of public accommodation, including those set



lief, including an order requiring Defendants to make Royal Dental readily accessible to and

independently usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA and

ADAAG, and/or to close Royal Dental until such time as Defendants cure the access barriers.





- 7 -







and equal basis in violation of the IHRA, as described above. Plaintiff Davis has been denied full

and equal access to Royal Dental and/or has been denied the opportunity to participate in or

benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations on a full

and equal basis.





38. Plaintiff Davis plans to visit Royal Dental again in the near future. Plaintiff is


anticipates that he will continue to suffer irreparable harm upon his planned return visit to Roy-

al Dental unless and until Defendants are required to remove the physical barriers to access and

ADA violations that exist at Defendants place of public accommodation, including those set



cluding an order requiring Defendants to make Royal Dental readily accessible to and inde-

pendently usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the IHRA, and/or to

close Royal Dental until such time as Defendants cure the access barriers.


- 8 -





















d. That the Court award Plaintiff his reasonable attorneys fees, litigation expenses,






- 9 -

DATED: August 21, 2015



EXHIBIT A


- 1 -


EDDIE DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. GUERRERO LP, INC.; LORENZO PED-RO aka LORENZO PEDRO MILLAN; and ALEJANDRA RAMIREZ fka ALEJANDRA PEDRO,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT


Defendants Guerrero LP, Inc., an Illinois business corporation; Lorenzo Pedro aka Lorenzo Ped-

ro Millan, an individual; and Alejandra Ramirez fka Alejandra Pedro, an individual, for viola-

tions of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12181, et seq. (the ADA) and its

implementing regulations, and the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101, et seq. (the

IHRA) and alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION



by, persons with disabilities. Defendants have failed to remove architectural barriers at the gro-

cery store known as Supermercado Guerrero, even though such removal is readily achievable.

2. The violations alleged in this complaint occurred at the grocery store known as

Supermercado Guerrero, located at 3100 W. Cermak Road. Chicago, IL 60623.

3. Defendants failure to provide equal access to Supermercado Guerrero violates

the mandates of the ADA and IHRA to provide full and equal enjoyment of a public accommo-

dations goods, services, facilities, privileges, and advantages.


- 2 -





















PARTIES







- 3 -




10. Defendants Lorenzo Pedro aka Lorenzo Pedro Millan an individual, and Alejan-

dra Ramirez fka Alejandra Pedro, an individual, are the owners of the real property and im-

provements which are the subject of this action, the grocery store, Supermercado Guerrero, a

place of public accommodation within the meaning of the ADA, located at the street address of

3100 W. Cermak Road. Chicago, IL 60623.

11. Defendant Guerrero LP, Inc., an Illinois business corporation, is the lessee and

operator of the real property and improvements which are the subject of this action, the grocery

store Supermercado Guerrero, a place of public accommodation within the meaning of the

ADA, located at the street address of 3100 W. Cermak Road. Chicago, IL 60623.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

12. On or around July 14, 2015, Plaintiff Davis attempted to visit Supermercado

Guerrero, which is located approximately 2.5 miles from his apartment.

13. Upon arrival, Plaintiff Davis could not find an accessible public entrance into

Supermercado Guerrero. The doorway of the public entrance facing Cermak Road was posi-

tioned at the top of a ramp approximately two feet long with a six inch rise. A change in level of

approximately two inches at the base of the ramp prevented a smooth transition between the pub-

lic sidewalk and the ramp leading to the entrance. There was no maneuvering clearance between

the ramp and the doorway. Photographs in Exhibit A to this Complaint show the public entrance

to Supermercado Guerrero.

14. No signage indicated the presence of an accessible entrance.

15. Navigating a wheelchair over large changes in level is dangerous for Plaintiff Da-

vis due to the danger of tipping or damaging his wheelchair, especially when he is on a ramped

surface or opening doors. The lack of any level maneuvering clearance on the exterior of Su-

permercado Guerrero compounds the difficulty of gaining access to the grocery store.


- 4 -

16. In light of the architectural barriers at Supermercado Guerrero, Plaintiff Davis

is deterred from visiting Supermercado Guerrero in the future. Plaintiff Davis would like to be

able to patronize Supermercado Guerrero, but these architectural barriers deter him from doing

so. He plans to return and patronize Supermercado Guerrero when he learns that the premises

have been made fully accessible to persons who use wheelchairs for mobility.







FACT ALLEGATIONS



Accessibility Guidelines (the ADAAG) and the ILCS with regard to Supermercado Guerre-

ro. A specific, though not exclusive, list of unlawful physical barriers and violations present at

Supermercado Guerrero which limit the ability of persons in wheelchairs to access the facili-

ties and/or to enjoy the goods, services, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations offered

therein on a full and equal basis, includes the following:

a. The route to the public entrance of Supermercado Guerrero has a change in lev-

el greater than half an inch, in violation of ADAAG 403.4 and 303.2.

b. The exterior side of the doorway of the public entrance of Supermercado Guerre-

ro does not have level maneuvering clearance, in violation of ADAAG 404.2.4

and 404.2.4.4.

c. Supermercado Guerrero does not have an accessible public entrance, in viola-

tion of ADAAG 206.4.1.


- 5 -

d. To the extent that Supermercado Guerrero has an accessible public entrance, the

entrance facing Cermak Road did not have directional signage indicating the

presence of an accessible entrance, in violation of ADAAG 216.6.


tions of the ADA and ILCS encountered by Plaintiff Davis or which exist at Supermercado

Guerrero.


spection of Supermercado Guerrero in order to photograph and measure all such barriers to

access and violations of the ADA, the ADAAG and the ILCS.







C.F.R. 36.304(b).

22. As a

Documents

Franklin Jr. v. Karyn's Cooked Inc. et al