Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1

Transcription

1 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION MERYL SQUIRES CANNON, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) DENNIS WHITE, ERIC HILDEBRANDT, ) PATRICK DWYER, CHRISTOPHER ) CARMICHAEL, HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP, ) THE FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT OF ) COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, OFFICER COOPER ) and DOES Nos. 1-15, ) Defendants. ) COMPLAINT NOW COMES THE PLAINTIFF, Meryl Squires Cannon, by her undersigned attorneys and pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and complaining of the Defendants, states as follows: COUNT I (42 U.S.C and 1988) 1. This is an action for violation of the Plaintiff s civil rights and for related causes of action as set forth herein. The Defendants conspired to and did deprive the Plaintiff of her liberty acting under color of state law. Each of the Defendants also actively promoted and participated in the tortious acts complained of herein and as more fully described below 2. Plaintiff Meryl Squires Cannon is an individual who resides within the geographic boundaries of the Northern District of Illinois. 3. Defendant The Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois (hereinafter, the Forest Preserve District ) is a body corporate and politic which exists under the laws of the State of Illinois and does business in Cook County, Illinois. 1

2 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/15 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:2 4. Defendant Dennis White, on information and belief, is an individual who resides within the geographic boundaries of the Northern District of Illinois. 5. Defendant Eric Hildebrandt, on information and belief, is an individual who resides within the geographic boundaries of the Northern District of Illinois. At relevant times he was employed by the Forest Preserve District as a police officer. 6. Defendant Cooper, on information and belief, is an individual who resides within the geographic boundaries of the Northern District of Illinois. At relevant times he was employed by the Forest Preserve District as a police officer. 7. Defendant Patrick Dwyer, on information and belief, is an individual who resides within the geographic boundaries of the Northern District of Illinois. At relevant times he was employed by the Forest Preserve District as a police commander. 8. Defendant Holland & Knight, LLP is a national law firm which maintains an office in Chicago and does business in Illinois. The firm is of counsel to the Forest Preserve District of Cook County. 9. Defendant Christopher Carmichael is an individual who, on information and belief, resides within the geographic boundaries of the Northern District of Illinois. Mr. Carmichael is a partner in the Holland & Knight, LLP law firm. 10. The Doe Defendants Nos are other persons who either serve on the governing board of, or are employed or under contract to, the Forest Preserve District of Cook County, and who knew or approved of, or actively participated in, the Defendants acts. Upon information and belief, the names and specific conduct of the Doe Defendants can be more fully identified and set forth after discovery. 11. The Court has jurisdiction of this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C and 1343, in that 2

3 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/15 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:3 the cause arises out of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Plaintiff seeks damages under Title 42. This Court also has pendent, supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims asserted in this complaint. 12. Venue is appropriate in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), in that the Defendants all reside in this judicial district, and the events occurred within this district. 13. Plaintiff formerly resided in and operated an equine breeding farm on certain real estate situated in Barrington Hills, Illinois, commonly known as Horizon Farms. She was involved in the breeding, feeding, care and nurturing of dozens of horses, including horses which were owned by others, and the operations in which she was involved provided jobs to numerous hands, stable keepers, veterinarians and others. 14. Pursuant to a judgment entered in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, in a certain mortgage foreclosure litigation, the Forest Preserve District acquired title to the Horizon Farms property on May 5, Defendants Holland & Knight LLP and Carmichael represented the Forest Preserve District in that litigation. Plaintiff was a party in that litigation, adverse to the Forest Preserve District; she vigorously defended the action, in order to protect her home and property. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County is now the subject of a pending appeal in the Illinois Appellate Court. 15. At all relevant times, Royalty Farms, LLC managed the equine farm at Horizon Farms. Royalty Farms, LLC was and is a lessee of the farm real estate since Royalty Farms, LLC was not a party to the mortgage foreclosure litigation. The Forest Preserve District took title to the farm property subject to all existing leases, including the lease to Royalty Farms, LLC. 16. The operations of Royalty Farms, LLC included the daily care and feeding of horses, owned by that company or by others, which were being kept at Horizon Farms. 3

4 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/15 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:4 17. The Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known of the existence of the Royalty Farms, LLC lease of the Horizon Farms real estate. 18. Plaintiff visited Horizon Farms as the duly authorized representative and employee of the lessee, Royalty Farms, LLC, in order to feed and care for its horses. As a paid employee of Royalty Farms, LLC, her job responsibilities included all equine care and farm oversight, foaling, mare and foal care, diet and nutrition decisions, taking temperatures, turnout, evening feeding and wellness check, paddock inspection, fence inspection and haying instructions. In this capacity, Plaintiff came to the farm regularly each morning and evening in 2013 and 2014, and she was known to Forest Preserve District personnel to be present frequently, on a daily basis, at the farm. 19. Employees and staff of the Forest Preserve District repeatedly acknowledged Plaintiff s presence at Horizon Farms and communicated to her that she was permitted to enter the property to feed and care for the horses. From time to time the Forest Preserve District personnel at the farm, including Forest Preserve District police officers, checked with their superiors and others to confirm that Plaintiff was permitted to enter the property. 20. At some point in August 2014, unbeknownst to the Plaintiff, the Forest Preserve District s legal department gave instructions to the Forest Preserve District maintenance staff employees and to the Forest Preserve District police department, that if Plaintiff was observed on the property she should be arrested for trespass. 21. Early in the morning of August 13, 2014, following instructions given by Defendant Dennis White, the Forest Preserve District police department lay in wait for Plaintiff at the farm property, in order to arrest her when she arrived to care for the horses of Royalty Farms, LLC. 22. Plaintiff arrived at Horizon Farms at approximately 6:00 a.m. on August 13, 2014, in her 4

5 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/15 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:5 capacity as the representative of the lessee, Royalty Farms, LLC, in the same manner as she had done on many past occasions. Plaintiff was not then in violation of any law or ordinance. 23. Acting under color of state law and in his capacity as an officer of the Forest Preserve District s own police force, and acting without probable cause, Defendant Cooper, the first arresting officer, then and there seized the Plaintiff and detained her. He handcuffed her and placed her in custody in the caged back seat of his police vehicle, and transported her to another location on the farm. Plaintiff repeatedly told Defendant Cooper that she is an employee of Royalty Farms who is the lessee on the farm. 24. After approximately one hour with Plaintiff held in the back of the police vehicle, Defendant Hildebrandt arrived and Plaintiff was transferred to his custody. Defendants Cooper and Hildebrandt transferred Plaintiff from Cooper s vehicle to Hildebrandt s vehicle. Cooper removed his handcuffs from the Plaintiff s wrists and Hildebrandt placed another set of handcuffs on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff repeatedly told Defendant Hildebrandt that she is an employee of Royalty Farms, LLC who has the lease on the farm. 25. Another hour passed with Plaintiff still in handcuffs and held in Defendant Hildebrandt s police vehicle when another police vehicle arrived. While in custody and handcuffs, Plaintiff was required by Defendant Hildebrandt to step out of the police vehicle, where she was held by Hildebrandt and confronted by Defendant Dwyer, who placed his hand on his gun as he walked toward the Plaintiff while threatening her in a loud voice, calling her a criminal and telling her that she was going to jail. Defendant Dwyer directed Defendant Hildebrandt to take Plaintiff to the Maywood police station for booking. 26. Defendant Hildebrandt again placed Plaintiff in his police vehicle, for transport to the police station in Maywood, Illinois. 5

6 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/15 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:6 27. Plaintiff s husband arrived at the scene to find his wife in handcuffs. He offered Defendant Dwyer a copy of the Royalty Farms, LLC lease, so that the officers could confirm with their superiors the Plaintiff s right to be on the property. 28. Plaintiff s husband also offered to have Plaintiff leave the property voluntarily and not to return until a judge had specifically ruled on the matter of Plaintiff s right to enter upon the property. 29. Defendant Dwyer communicated with one or more other Defendants about these offers. On information and belief, Defendant White then instructed Defendants Hildebrandt and Dwyer not to release the Plaintiff but instead to transport her from the scene, to a police station Maywood, Illinois or elsewhere, and then to book her for criminal trespass. 30. Plaintiff s husband then pleaded with Defendant Dwyer not to take her so far away but instead to take her to a local police station. 31. The Defendants then caused Plaintiff to be transported, in handcuffs in the police vehicle, to the Barrington Hills Police Station, where she was then handcuffed to the wall in the jail room, searched, charged with criminal trespass, fingerprinted and photographed. The Defendants charged her with Criminal Trespass to Real Property, a criminal offense under the laws of the State of Illinois. 32. The Plaintiff was thus deprived of her liberty and ability to move about freely. 33. The Defendants conspired to and then took these actions against Plaintiff so as to intimidate her and her husband and to discourage them from continuing to contest the claims of the Forest Preserve District against them in the foreclosure litigation, and from challenging the conduct of the Forest Preserve District in other litigation. 34. Plaintiff posted bail, retained a criminal defense attorney and defended herself against the 6

7 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/15 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:7 criminal charge. Plaintiff thus incurred expenses. 35. The criminal trespass to property charge was tried before the Hon. Marcia Orr, a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, on April 21, Defendant White testified for the State, and he testified that he had ordered the Plaintiff s arrest. At the close of the State s evidence, Judge Orr entered a finding of not guilty and specifically remarked on the record that a criminal trespass to land had not been proven. 36. The April 21, 2015 finding of not guilty is a final adjudication of the criminal charge. 37. At all times, the Defendants acted under color of state law and with the intent to deprive the Plaintiff of her liberty, abusing government power and authority. 38. As the direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, Plaintiff was wrongfully deprived of her liberty and sustained physical, emotional, psychological and pecuniary harms and losses. 39. Defendants acted with malice and ill will toward the Plaintiff, and for the specific purpose of intimidating her, harassing her and causing her harm. Moreover, the Defendants acted in retaliation for Plaintiff s vigorous defense of her rights and interests in the foreclosure litigation, and to gain an undue advantage over her and other parties to that litigation and other litigation. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Meryl Squires Cannon respectfully prays for entry of judgment in her favor and jointly and severally against Defendants White, Cooper, Hildebrandt, Dwyer, the Forest Preserve District, the Doe Defendants Nos. 1-15, and each of them, awarding her compensatory and punitive damages, requiring the Defendants to pay Plaintiff s costs and attorneys fees in connection with this action, and granting all such other or further relief as the Court deems just. 7

8 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/15 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:8 COUNT II (Civil Conspiracy) 40. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates herein by reference the allegations of each of the above paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein. 41. The Court has jurisdiction of this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a), in that the Plaintiff s state law tort claims are so related to the claims in Count I that they form part of the same case or controversy. 42. Defendants Carmichael and Holland & Knight, LLP, at a time or times not known to Plaintiff but on or before August 13, 2014, communicated and conspired with one or more of the other Defendants, including Dennis White, one or more of Does Nos. 1-15, and the Forest Preserve District, making a plan and agreement that the Forest Preserve District, through its own police force, would apprehend Plaintiff on the Horizon Farms property, arrest her and charge her with a crime, and then prosecute her for the same. 43. Each of Defendants Holland & Knight, LLP, Carmichael, the Forest Preserve District and Dennis White committed an overt act in furtherance of their conspiracy: a. Holland & Knight, LLP and Carmichael provided advice and counsel to the Forest Preserve District that Plaintiff could be treated as a trespasser and arrested; b. Dennis White gave directions to Defendants Dwyer and Hildebrandt to arrest Plaintiff, take her into custody and transport her; c. The Forest Preserve District, through its own private police force, and without probable cause, arrested the Plaintiff, took her into custody, caused her to be charged with a criminal offense, and then maliciously prosecuted her. 44. The conduct of the Forest Preserve District s attorneys, i.e., Defendants White, 8

9 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/15 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:9 Carmichael and Holland & Knight, LLP, was a participation in presenting criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matter, and thus was professional misconduct in violation of Rule 8.4(g) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. 45. As the direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, Plaintiff was wrongfully deprived of her liberty and sustained physical, emotional, psychological and pecuniary harms and losses. 46. Defendants acted with malice and ill will toward the Plaintiff, and for the specific purpose of intimidating and harassing her and causing her harm. Moreover, the Defendants acted in retaliation for Plaintiff s vigorous defense of her rights and interests in the foreclosure litigation, and to gain an undue advantage over her and other parties to that litigation and other litigation. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Meryl Squires Cannon respectfully prays for entry of judgment in her favor and against Defendants White, Carmichael, the Forest Preserve District, Holland & Knight, LLP, the Doe Defendants Nos. 1-15, and each of them, awarding her compensatory and punitive damages, requiring the Defendants to pay Plaintiff s costs and attorneys fees in connection with this action, and granting all such other or further relief as the Court deems just. COUNT III (False Arrest) 47. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates herein by reference the allegations of each of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 48. The Court has jurisdiction of this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a), in that the Plaintiff s state law tort claims are so related to the claims in Count I that they form part of the same case or controversy. 9

10 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/15 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: Defendants caused Plaintiff to be detained, confined and deprived of her liberty, without proof of guilt and without probable cause. 50. As the direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, Plaintiff was wrongfully deprived of her liberty and sustained physical, emotional, psychological and pecuniary harms and losses. 51. Defendants acted with malice and ill will toward the Plaintiff, and for the specific purpose of intimidating and harassing her and causing her harm. Moreover, the Defendants acted in retaliation for Plaintiff s vigorous defense of her rights and interests in the foreclosure litigation, and to gain an undue advantage over her and other parties to that litigation and other litigation. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Meryl Squires Cannon respectfully prays for entry of judgment in her favor and against all Defendants and each of them, jointly and severally, awarding her compensatory and punitive damages, requiring the Defendants to pay Plaintiff s costs and attorneys fees in connection with this action, and granting all such other or further relief as the Court deems just. COUNT IV (Malicious Prosecution) 52. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates herein by reference the allegations of each of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 53. The Court has jurisdiction of this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a), in that the Plaintiff s state law tort claims are so related to the claims in Count I that they form part of the same case or controversy. 54. Defendants caused Plaintiff to be charged with a criminal offense, without proof of guilt 10

11 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/06/15 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:11 and without probable cause. Plaintiff was acquitted at trial. 55. As the direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, Plaintiff was wrongfully deprived of her liberty and sustained physical, emotional, psychological and pecuniary harms and losses. 56. Defendants acted with malice and ill will toward the Plaintiff, and for the specific purpose of intimidating and harassing her and causing her harm. Moreover, the Defendants acted in retaliation for Plaintiff s vigorous defense of her rights and interests in the foreclosure litigation, and to gain an undue advantage over her and other parties to that litigation and other litigation. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Meryl Squires Cannon respectfully prays for entry of judgment in her favor and against all Defendants and each of them, jointly and severally, awarding her compensatory and punitive damages, requiring the Defendants to pay Plaintiff s costs and attorneys fees in connection with this action, and granting all such other or further relief as the Court deems just. PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. Respectfully submitted, MERYL SQUIRES CANNON, Plaintiff, By: /s/ Robert J. Slobig One of her attorneys Robert J. Slobig ( ) Torshen, Slobig, Genden, Dragutinovich & Axel, Ltd. 105 West Adams Street Chicago, IL (312)