Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Atty. No. 42525IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
BRIAN DOAKS, )on behalf of himself and )all others similarly situated, )
)Plaintiff, ) No.
v. ))
RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P., )& )
SHERIDAN PARK PRESERVATION, L.P., ) CLASS ACTION)
Defendants. )
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff, BRIAN DOAKS (“Tenant” or “Plaintiff”), by and
through their attorney MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD., individually and as
the proposed representative for the class of tenants described herein, complain as follows
against the Defendants RELATED MANAGEMENT CO., L.P. & SHERIDAN PARK
PRESERVATION, L.P. (“Landlord” or “Defendant”) both care of ILLINOIS
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY, 801 ADLAI STEVENSON DRIVE,
SPRINGFIELD, IL 62703-4261:
2. On or about July 24, 2017 Tenant entered into a rental agreement
(“First Lease”) with Landlord for a dwelling unit 204 (“Unit”) at the building at 4540 N.
Magnolia (“Building”) in Chicago, Cook County, with about 100 dwelling units.
3. A true and accurate copy the First Lease is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as EXHIBIT 1.
4. The First Lease was to run from August 1, 2017 through July 31,
2018.
FILED7/23/2019 8:01 PMDOROTHY BROWNCIRCUIT CLERKCOOK COUNTY, IL2019CH08614
5886255
Return Date: No return date scheduledHearing Date: 11/21/2019 9:30 AM - 9:30 AMCourtroom Number: 2502Location: District 1 Court Cook County, IL
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
2019CH08614
2
5. The First Lease required Tenant to give Landlord an $800 security
deposit for the Unit.
6. On or about July 24, 2018 Tenant entered into another rental
agreement (“Second Lease”) with Landlord for the Unit with the same security deposit.
7. A true and accurate copy the Second Lease is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as EXHIBIT 2.
8. The Second Lease was to run from August 1, 2018 through July
31, 2019.
9. Landlord failed to pay any security deposit interest to Tenant in
any amount within 30 days after the end of Tenant’s first 12-month rental period at the
Unit which ended July 31, 2018.
10. The First and Second Leases nowhere disclosed the name or
address of the financial institution where Tenant’s security deposit would be deposited.
11. The City of Chicago has published on their website since 2016 at
https://311.chicago.gov/s/article/Landlord-and-tenant-ordinance-
information?language=en_US that:
“On March 17, 2016, the City updated the RLT OrdinanceSummary (required by MCC Section 5-12-170) to add a reference toSection 5-12-101 (Bed Bugs-Education). The City does not regard RLTOrdinance Summaries attached or otherwise provided by landlords prior toJune 1, 2016 that do not include this new reference, as violating Section 5-12-170 solely as a result of that omission.”
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
3
12. Attached to the First or Second Lease there was no summary of the
Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (“RLTO”) including the language:
“Bed Bugs-Education. For any rental agreement for a dwelling unitentered into or renewed after the effective date of this 2013 amendatoryordi- nance, prior to entering into or renewing such agreement, thelandlord or any person authorized to enter into such agreement on hisbehalf shall provide to such tenant the informational brochure on bed bugprevention and treatment prepared by the department of health pursuant tosection 7-28-860. {Mun Code Ch. 5-12-101}”
13. Upon information and belief Landlord Related Management
Company, L.P. is a landlord of residential dwelling units in Chicago at 1747 E. 67th ST.,
7717 N. PAULINA ST., 3608 S. INDIANA AVE., 6415 S. CALUMENT AVE., and
other properties.
14. Upon information and belief Landlord did not disclose in writing
the name or address of the financial institution where the tenants’ security deposits would
be deposited on leases with at least 100 other Chicago residential tenants.
15. Upon information and belief Landlord did not pay security deposit
interest within 30 days after the end of each 12-month rental period to at least 50 other
Chicago residential tenants with security deposits.
16. Upon information and belief Landlord attached the same summary
to Tenant’s July 24, 2017 and 2018 Leases that Landlord attached to at least 100 other
Chicago residential tenants’ leases on or after July 24, 2017.
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
4
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF RLTO § 5-12-170
17. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-16.
18. Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (“RLTO”) §
5-12-170 provides that:
“The commissioner of the department of planning anddevelopment shall prepare a summary of this chapter,describing the respective rights, obligations and remedies oflandlords and tenants hereunder, and shall make suchsummary available for public inspection and copying. Thecommissioner shall also, after the city comptroller hasannounced the rate of interest on security deposits on the firstbusiness day of the year, prepare a separate summarydescribing the respective rights, obligations and remedies oflandlords and tenants with respect to security deposits,including the new interest rate as well as the rate for each ofthe prior two years. The commissioner shall also distribute thenew rate of security deposit interest, as well as the rate for eachof the prior two years, through public service announcementsto all radio and television outlets broadcasting in the city. Acopy of such summary shall be attached to each written rentalagreement when any such agreement is initially offered to anytenant or prospective tenant by or on behalf of a landlord andwhether such agreement is for a new rental or a renewalthereof. Where there is an oral agreement, the landlord shallgive to the tenant a copy of the summary.
The summary shall include the following language:
"The porch or deck of this building should be designed for alive load of up to 100 pounds, per square foot and is safe onlyfor its intended use. Protect your safety. Do not overload theporch or deck. If you have questions about porch or decksafety, call the City of Chicago non-emergency number, 3-1-1."
If the landlord acts in violation of this section, the tenant mayterminate the rental agreement by written notice. The writtennotice shall specify the date of termination no later than 30days from the date of the written notice. If a tenant in a civillegal proceeding against his landlord establishes that a
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
5
violation of this section has occurred, he shall be entitled torecover $100.00 in damages.”
19. Lessor initially offered the First and Second Leases to Tenant
without attaching any summary of the RLTO including disclosure under “WHAT ARE
THE LANDLORD’S GENERAL DUTIES UNDER THE ORDINANCE”:
“Bed Bugs-Education. For any rental agreement for a dwelling unitentered into or renewed after the effective date of this 2013amendatory ordinance, prior to entering into or renewing suchagreement, the landlord or any person authorized to enter into suchagreement on his behalf shall provide to such tenant theinformational brochure on bed bug prevention and treatmentprepared by the department of health pursuant to section 7-28-860.{Mun Code Ch. 5-12-101}.”
20. Landlord’s failure to attach a separate summary including the
security deposit interest rate for the “new” years 2017 or 2018 to leases and renewals
entered into in 2017 or 2018 entitles Tenant and each other similarly situated tenant (or
group of tenants under one lease) to damages equal to $100.00 as well as to terminate
their leases early by giving the written notice specified in RLTO § 5-12-170, plus
recovery of costs and attorney fees under RLTO § 5-12-180.
21. Landlord’s failure to attach the summary of the RLTO prepared by
and made available for public inspection and copying by the commissioner of the
department of planning and development at the time the First or Second Leases were
initially offered to Tenant entitles Tenant and each other similarly situated tenant (or
group of tenants under one lease) to damages equal to $100.00 as well as to terminate
their leases early by giving the written notice specified in RLTO § 5-12-170, plus
recovery of costs and attorney fees under RLTO § 5-12-180.
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
6
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
22. Tenant brings this claim on behalf of a class. The class consists
of all tenants and former tenants of any Buildings in Chicago managed by Related
Management Company, L.P., or an entity it did business as, who (1) had a lease or
renewal initially offered to them by Landlord and (2) got no summary including the
security deposit interest rate for the new year (2017 or 2018) and/or including the
language cited at paragraph 19 attached to that lease or renewal any time after the date
two years before this case was filed.
23. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is not
practicable. The Building has about 100 apartments occupied, and formerly occupied, by
tenants offered leases and renewals, and the other residential dwelling units leased by
Related Management Company, L.P. in Chicago housed hundreds of other occupants in
the relevant time period.
24. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, which
common questions predominate over any questions relating to individual class members.
The predominant common questions are whether Landlord was required to attach a
summary prepared by the Commissioner of the Department of Planning and
Development which is made available for inspection and copying by the public to each
rental agreement and renewal.
25. Tenant’s claim is typical of the claims of the class members. All
are based on the same factual and legal theories. Upon information and belief the same
attachments, or absence thereof, were used by Landlord for other tenants renting at the
same Building and other properties managed by a Landlord during the same time period.
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
7
Discovery will confirm or dispose of this reasonable belief. Tenant was offered the same
lease suffering the same defects in 2018 as in 2017.
26. Common practices of preparing a lease, and common forms used
to prepare a lease, were in use at the Building at and around the time Tenant was initially
offered their rental agreements by Landlord.
27. Tenant has retained counsel experienced in landlord-tenant
class action litigation.
28. A class action is appropriate for the fair and efficient adjudication
of this matter. Individual actions are not economically feasible given the $100.00 per
claimant ceiling on recovery under RLTO § 5-12-170.
WHEREFORE, the Court should enter judgment in favor of Tenant and
the class members and against Landlords for:
(1) Statutory damages of $100.00;
(2) Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of
suit; and
(3) A finding that tenants subject to violation under
RLTO § 5-12-170 may terminate, or have
terminated, their lease(s) legally with Landlord
pursuant to that section.
(4) Such other and further relief as the Court deems
proper.
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
8
COUNT II
RLTO § 5-12-080(a)(3)
29. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-16.
30. RLTO § 5-12-080(a)(3) provides that:
“The name and address of the financial institution where the securitydeposit will be deposited shall be clearly and conspicuously disclosedin the written rental agreement signed by the tenant. If no writtenrental agreement is provided, the landlord shall, within 14 days ofreceipt of the security deposit, notify the tenant in writing of the nameand address of the financial institution where the security deposit wasdeposited.”
31. Both leases signed between Tenant and Landlord nowhere disclose
the name or address of the financial institution where the security deposit was to be
deposited.
32. Section 5-12-080(f) provides that if a landlord fails to comply with
RLTO § 5-12-080(a) then the tenant shall be awarded two times the amount of the
security deposit.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
33. Tenant brings this claim on behalf of a class. The class consists
of all current and former residential tenants of a Landlord in Chicago who (1) signed a
rental agreement with Landlord which (2) required those tenants to give a security
deposit for Landlord to hold and which (3) did not disclose the address of the financial
institution the security deposit was to be deposited at, at any time on or after July 24,
2017.
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
9
34. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is not
practicable. The Building had about 100 apartments occupied, and formerly occupied, by
tenants offered leases and renewals, and Landlord Related Management Company, L.P.
manages hundreds of other residential dwelling units in Chicago at other buildings.
35. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, which
common questions predominate over any questions relating to individual class members.
The predominant common questions are (1) whether disclosure of a bank’s name and
address were required on each lease of a putative class member; and (2) whether a
putative class member’s lease discloses no city or state or zip code for the financial
institution, like Tenant’s Leases.
36. Tenant’s claim is typical of the claims of the putative class
members. All are based on the same factual and legal theories. Upon information and
belief the same lease was used by Landlord for other tenants renting at the same Building
during the same time period. Discovery will confirm or dispose of this reasonable belief.
37. Upon information and belief, tenants at other properties in Chicago
with residential dwelling units rented by Landlord Related Management Company, L.P.
were subjected to the same failure to disclose the name or address of the financial
institution where their security deposits would be deposited.
38. Common practices of preparing a lease, and common forms used
to prepare a lease, were in use at the Building and other properties in Chicago managed
by a Landlord.
39. Tenant has retained counsel experienced in similar landlord-
tenant class action litigation.
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
10
40. A class action is appropriate for the fair and efficient adjudication
of this matter. All putative class members’ claims hinge on the legal question of
whether or not disclosure of the name and address of a bank was made on, or
required on, the leases entered into by Landlord with Chicago residential tenants
with security deposits after July 23, 2017.
WHEREFORE, the Court should enter judgment in favor of Tenant and
the class members and against Defendants for:
(1) Statutory damages equal to two times the amount of
the security deposit for each tenant or group of
tenants who gave the same security deposit to
Landlord;
(2) Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of
suit; and
(3) Such other and further relief as the Court deems
proper.
COUNT III
RLTO § 5-12-080(c)
41. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-16.
42. RLTO § 5-12-080(c) provides that:
“A landlord who holds a security deposit or prepaid rent pursuant tothis section for more than six months shall pay interest to the tenantaccruing from the beginning date of the rental term specified in therental agreement at the rate determined in accordance with Section 5-12-081 for the year in which the rental agreement was entered into.The landlord shall, within 30 days after the end of each 12-month
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
11
rental period, pay to the tenant any interest, by cash or credit to beapplied to the rent due.”
43. Landlord failed to pay any security deposit interest to Tenant
within 30 days after the end of Tenant’s first 12 month rental period at the Unit.
44. Landlord failed to pay any security deposit interest to other
residential tenants in Chicago within 30 days after the end of each 12 month rental
period.
45. Section 5-12-080(f) provides that if a landlord fails to comply with
RLTO § 5-12-080(c) then the tenant shall be awarded two times the amount of the
security deposit.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
46. Tenant brings this claim on behalf of a class. The class consists
of all current and former residential tenants of a Landlord in Chicago who were not paid
interest on their security deposit within 30 days after the end of any 12 month rental
period that ended on or after June 30, 2017.
47. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is not
practicable. The Building had about 100 apartments occupied, and formerly occupied, by
tenants offered leases and renewals, and Landlord Related Management Company, L.P.
manages hundreds of other residential dwelling units in Chicago at other buildings.
48. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, which
common questions predominate over any questions relating to individual class members.
The predominant common questions are (1) whether tenants were entitled to the interest
payments allegedly unpaid; and (2) whether a putative class member was actually paid
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
12
interest or not.
49. Tenant’s claim is typical of the claims of the putative class
members. All are based on the same factual and legal theories. Upon information and
belief the Landlord had no unique reason to fail to pay interest on Tenant’s security
deposit that would differentiate Tenant from other tenants with security deposits renting
from Landlord in Chicago in the same time period. Discovery will confirm or dispose of
this reasonable belief.
50. Upon information and belief, tenants at other properties in Chicago
with residential dwelling units rented by Landlord Related Management Company, L.P.
were subjected to the same failure to pay security deposit interest to tenants within 30
days after the end of each 12 month rental period.
51. Tenant has retained counsel experienced in similar landlord-
tenant class action litigation.
52. A class action is appropriate for the fair and efficient adjudication
of this matter. All putative class members’ claims hinge on the legal question of
whether or not security deposit interest was due, and whether or not it was paid within
30 days after the end of each 12 month rental period that ended June 30, 2017 or later.
WHEREFORE, the Court should enter judgment in favor of Tenant and the
class members and against Defendants for:
(1) Statutory damages equal to two times the amount of the
security deposit for each tenant or group of tenants who
gave the same security deposit to Landlord;
(2) Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit; and
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
(3) Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
By:
13
Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
tfully submitted,
DOAKES
By:
One of
MARKLAW OFFICE225 W.SUITE 2200CHICAGO
T: (312)F: (312COOK A
Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
Res itted,
R
One of Plaintiff’s a
MARK SILVERMANOFFICE LTD.
W. WASHINGTON
2200HICAGO, IL 60606
(312) 775 1015312) 256 2055
ATTORNEY #
Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
Respectfully
RIAN DOAK
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN DOAKS
attorneys
SILVERMANLTD.
ASHINGTON STREET
60606
# 42525
Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
EXHIBIT 1
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
EXHIBIT 2
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
FILE
D D
ATE:
7/2
3/20
19 8
:01
PM
2019
CH
0861
4
