2:13-cv JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 1 of 18 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Transcription

1 2:13-cv JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 1 of 18 Pg ID 1 KEVIN PAUL LADACH, Vs. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CITY OF ROMULUS, a Municipal Corporation, d/b/a City of Romulus Police Department, and CHIEF ROBERT DICKERSON, in his official and individual capacity, and CAPTAIN DERRAN SHELBY, in his official and individual capacity, / JOEL B. SKLAR P38338 Attorney for Plaintiff 615 Griswold, Suite 1116 Detroit, MI Joelb79@hotmail.com / COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Kevin Paul Ladach files this Complaint and Jury Demand against Defendants City of Romulus d/b/a City of Romulus Police Department, Defendant City of Romulus Police Department Chief Robert Dickerson and City of Romulus Police Chief Captain Derran Shelby and says: 1. This lawsuit arises out of Defendants retaliation against Plaintiff in violation of Plaintiff s First Amendment free speech rights, his reports of suspected unlawful activity to law enforcement and the Michigan Attorney General s Office and his refusal to commit a crime and destroy evidence of criminal conduct by a fellow police officer or engage in a cover-up of criminal conduct by a fellow officer which violated a citizen s Fourth Amendment rights.

2 2:13-cv JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 2 of 18 Pg ID 2 2. Plaintiff Kevin Ladach is a member of the City of Romulus Police Department and transacts business in Wayne County, Michigan which is located in this District. 3. Defendant City of Romulus is a Michigan municipal corporation which operates the City of Romulus Police Department which transacts business in Wayne County, Michigan and is located in this District. 4. Defendant Robert Dickerson is an employee of the City of Romulus d/b/a City of Romulus Police Department and the Chief of Police for the City of Romulus Police Department which transacts business in Wayne County, Michigan and is located in this District. Defendant Dickerson is being sued in his official and individual capacity. 5. Defendant Derran Shelby is an employee of the City of Romulus d/b/a City of Romulus Police Department and a Captain of the City of Romulus Police Department which transacts business in Wayne County, Michigan and is located in this District. Defendant Shelby is being sued in his official and individual capacity. 6. When the events alleged in this Complaint occurred, the individual Defendants were violating Plaintiff s clearly established constitutional rights and their actions were clearly unreasonable. As such, the individual Defendants are not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. 7. Defendant City of Romulus d/b/a City of Romulus Police Department cannot avail itself of governmental immunity pursuant to its intentional actions taken against Plaintiff as such are intentional torts and immunity against said

3 2:13-cv JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 3 of 18 Pg ID 3 governmental agency have been waived pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection Act, being MCL In addition, sovereign immunity does not apply to municipalities such as the City of Romulus d/b/a City of Romulus Police Department. 8. The individually named Defendants are each being sued in their individual capacity as well as in their official capacities. 9. The acts, transactions and events which give rise to this action all occurred in the City of Romulus, Wayne County, Michigan which is located in this District. 10. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff s federal and state claims pursuant to 42 USC 1983, 28 USC 1331, 28 USC 1367 and the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of this court, exclusive of costs, fees and interest. COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 11. In September of 1999, Plaintiff was hired by Defendant City of Romulus d/b/a City of Romulus Police Department as a civilian dispatcher. 12. Sometime in 2003, Defendant City of Romulus d/b/a City of Romulus Police Department sponsored Plaintiff s entry into the Police Academy. 13. From 2003 through February 2009, Plaintiff worked as a patrolman on road patrol for Defendant City of Romulus d/b/a City of Romulus Police Department. 14. Sometime in 2009, due to Plaintiff s exemplary performance and qualifications, he was assigned to the Detective Bureau of Defendant City of Romulus d/b/a City of Romulus Police Department. 15. Sometime in July of 2011, due to Plaintiff s exemplary performance and qualifications, he was promoted to the position of Sergeant.

4 2:13-cv JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 4 of 18 Pg ID From July of 2011 to December of 2011, Plaintiff worked as a Sergeant in uniform on road patrol. 17. In December of 2011, a new position was created by Defendant City of Romulus d/b/a the City of Romulus Police Department, which combined the duties of the record bureau sergeant and the detective sergeant, who would work under the authority of Defendant Captain Shelby. 18. Based on his qualifications and exemplary performance, Plaintiff was selected for this position which also included operation of the property/evidence room. 19. In July of 2012, Plaintiff wrote a memo to the Defendants Shelby and Dickerson informing them that he could not perform all of the duties assigned at a standard acceptable to Plaintiff. Plaintiff, therefore, asked that the position be reposted for other interested sergeants and, if no other sergeants applied or were interested in the position, that Defendants Captain Shelby and Chief Dickerson consider reorganization by assigning some of Plaintiff s duties to others. 20. Defendant Dickerson informed Plaintiff that he thought Captain Shelby was going to assist Plaintiff in the performance of his duties, which Shelby did not, and that the Chief never expected all of the responsibilities of the Records Bureau to be handled by Plaintiff alone. 21. Defendant Dickerson asked Plaintiff to rescind the letter suggesting reorganization, which Plaintiff did, in exchange for Defendant Dickerson s promise to assist Plaintiff with his duties. 22. At this meeting, Defendant Dickerson told Plaintiff that he could return to road patrol if he wanted but that Dickerson preferred that Plaintiff stay in the Detective

5 2:13-cv JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 5 of 18 Pg ID 5 Bureau. Plaintiff informed Chief Dickerson that he did not want to return to road patrol. 23. Plaintiff s duties in the record bureau included the processing of requests made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) being MCL et seq. 24. Since December of 2011 when Plaintiff assumed the supervision of the records bureau, all FOIA requests came directly to Plaintiff for his review and response. 25. These duties included the downloading, and preservation of, patrol car video and police station video. 26. On August 1, 2012, Plaintiff learned that an incident had occurred on the midnight shift in which a City of Romulus police officer allegedly struck a handcuffed prisoner. 27. Plaintiff heard Defendant Chief Dickerson in the open hallway talking to an unidentified person in which Defendant Dickerson admitted that he had spoken to the victim, that the victim had requested a copy of the surveillance video tape and that Defendant Chief denied the victim s request. 28. The general practice of the Romulus Police Department is to safeguard and maintain a copy of all patrol car and surveillance videos for a period of 30 days from the date of their making after which date the surveillance video is automatically deleted from the Department s computers and irretrievably lost. 29. After hearing of the alleged criminal assault of a handcuffed prisoner by a City of Romulus police officer, that the victim had requested a copy of the video and that Chief Dickerson informed the victim that he would not be given the video,

6 2:13-cv JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 6 of 18 Pg ID 6 Plaintiff downloaded and saved the video of the incident on the Romulus Police Department computer. 30. Defendant Captain Shelby knew that the video existed because he had personally viewed the video when it was played in Plaintiff s office. 31. On September 21, 2012, a FOIA request was faxed to the Romulus Police Department by attorney Michael Rataj which concerned the assault of the handcuffed prisoner, including, among other things, a request for any and all copies of the video. (Rataj correspondence, Ex. A.) 32. On September 24, 2012, Plaintiff received the FOIA request. 33. Pursuant to his job duties, Plaintiff prepared a FOIA response letter and requested all documents/videos, making all of the appropriate exemptions and redactions as provided in the statute. 34. Plaintiff then presented the FOIA packet for Defendant Dickerson s review. 35. When Defendant Dickerson asked what the packet involved, Plaintiff responded that the materials involved the punch described above. 36. Shortly after Plaintiff had spoken with Defendant Dickerson, Defendant Captain Shelby came to Plaintiff s office and summoned him to meet in Defendant Dickerson s office. 37. Once in Defendant Chief Dickerson s office, Defendant Dickerson asked Plaintiff Why do we have this? referring to the video tape which captured the assault of the handcuffed prisoner. 38. Plaintiff responded that he had saved it referring to the video which had been digitally downloaded on Plaintiff s department issued computer.

7 2:13-cv JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 7 of 18 Pg ID Defendant Chief Dickerson responded that he thought the video was only saved for 30 days and asked Plaintiff why he had saved this particular video. 40. Plaintiff explained to Defendant Chief Dickerson that plaintiff had saved the video because (1) he had a duty as a FOIA coordinator to preserve any requested documents [here the victim had orally requested the video from Defendant Dickerson well within the 30 days of the incident] and not allow their destruction to avoid their release and (2) he expected an investigation of the incident to be completed and (3) the existence of the video would be of obvious importance to such investigation as it constituted actual video evidence of the incident. 41. Defendant Dickerson stated that I didn t know that this [the video] was in existence, I guess I ll have to start an investigation now. Well actually I do have an investigation. I gave him [the victim] a complaint packet. I m waiting for him to return it to complete the investigation. This struck Plaintiff as odd since any investigation should have commenced immediately after Defendant Dickerson learned that a citizen had accused a City of Romulus Police Officer of assaulting him while he was handcuffed and in the custody and control of the City of Romulus Police Department. 42. Plaintiff told Defendant Dickerson that if there was an open investigation, which was news to Plaintiff, that would qualify as an exemption under FOIA, but since the video was in existence, the City of Romulus Police Department was, in Plaintiff s opinion as the FOIA Coordinator, delaying the inevitable and that the video would have to be released at some point.

8 2:13-cv JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 8 of 18 Pg ID Defendant Chief Dickerson then said I m not giving this video out so some attorney can help this guy fill out his complaint packet. Plaintiff knew that the reason stated by Defendant Chief Dickerson was not a qualifying exemption under FOIA. 44. Defendant Chief Dickerson then asked Defendant Captain Shelby if he had seen the video to which Defendant Shelby replied It ain t pretty. 45. Defendant Dickerson instructed Plaintiff to complete a time extension request for the FOIA response so that he could have City of Romulus attorney, Barry Seifman, review the FOIA. Plaintiff left the packet with Defendant Chief Dickerson. 46. On Tuesday, October 2, 2012, there was a rumor that the officer who punched the handcuffed prisoner had been disciplined on October 1, 2012, some two months after the alleged assault. 47. On Wednesday, October 3, 2012, Plaintiff learned from another officer of a memo from Defendant Dickerson s secretary which stated that Lt. Josh Monte was being promoted to Captain and that his duties included performing work at the records bureau. 48. On October 4, 2012, Defendant Chief Dickerson came to Plaintiff s office, asked Plaintiff s office mate, Detective Tommy Westhoff, to leave the office so he could speak with Plaintiff privately. This had never happened before. 49. Defendant Chief Dickerson then proceeded to discuss the above referenced FOIA request with Plaintiff and instructed Plaintiff to make specified changes in the

9 2:13-cv JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 9 of 18 Pg ID 9 FOIA response and asked the whereabouts of any discs that contained the video or depiction of the punch. 50. Plaintiff told Defendant Chief Dickerson that two discs existed; one disc that was contained in the FOIA packet previously provided the Chief and the second was in the FOIA file cabinet in the records bureau. 51. Plaintiff also informed Defendant Chief Dickerson that the video (in digital format) was also downloaded on Plaintiff s City of Romulus computer and a USB drive. 52. Defendant Chief Dickerson then instructed Plaintiff to delete the (digital) video copy from his computer and USB drive and to turn over any discs of the incident to Defendant Chief Dickerson and that they would be turned over to City of Romulus attorney Seifman. 53. Plaintiff replied that he understood the Chief s order. 54. Later on October 4, 2012, Defendant Captain Shelby came to Plaintiff s office and said What s wrong Sergeant. I know you re unhappy. 55. Plaintiff replied that he was not happy being part of any kind of cover up. 56. Defendant Shelby stated I don t think there is any kind of cover up in spite of the fact that Defendant Dickerson had not commenced a timely investigation of the alleged assault, had denied the victim citizen s verbal request for the video of the alleged assault, had informed Plaintiff that Defendant Dickerson did not want to give the video to the citizen victim so that he could utilize the services of an attorney to complete the complaint packet and had ordered Plaintiff to destroy evidence of the alleged assault.

10 2:13-cv JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 10 of 18 Pg ID Plaintiff replied that The whole thing stinks. The only reason anything was done here is just because of a FOIA request. I don t want [the officer] to be in any trouble, but this thing happened two months ago. Something should have been done a long time ago. 58. Defendant Shelby replied that the officer involved in the incident wanted the entire incident to go away too and further advised Plaintiff that there was a possibility of a criminal investigation concerning the assault of the handcuffed prisoner. 59. In addition, as the FOIA coordinator, Plaintiff had never before been asked or instructed to turn video evidence over to the City of Romulus attorney and also believed that turning over such evidence would break the chain of custody. 60. Plaintiff was troubled by Defendant Dickerson s order to destroy material evidence of a possible criminal conduct and decided to report his suspicions of a cover-up of possible criminal conduct to the Michigan Attorney General s Office. 61. On October 5, 2012, Plaintiff contacted the Michigan Attorney General s Office to report his suspicions of illegal activity (i.e., the assault of the handcuffed prisoner) and a possible cover up of a crime committed by an officer of the City of Romulus Police Department. 62. On October 8, 2012, Plaintiff informed Defendants Dickerson and Shelby that he had contacted the Michigan Attorney General s Office to report his suspicions of illegal activity and that he had made a copy of the surveillance video of the assault of the handcuffed officer which was also provided to the Attorney General s Office.

11 2:13-cv JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 11 of 18 Pg ID On October 8, 2012, Defendant Chief Dickerson told Plaintiff that he wished he had kept the issue in-house rather than going to the Attorney General s Office. 64. Defendant Captain Shelby informed Plaintiff that since Captain Monte had taken over the record bureau duties that Plaintiff would be expected to handle more duties in the Detective Bureau, including case assignments, payroll and supervisory duties. 65. On October 9, 2012, Captain Shelby provided Plaintiff with a copy of the revised FOIA response letter and asked Plaintiff if he wanted his name included as the signatory of the letter to which Plaintiff responded that he did not. 66. On December 5, 2012, Plaintiff spoke with Carol Mayerich of the City of Romulus Human Resources Department and told her that Defendants Chief Dickerson and Captain Shelby had created a hostile work environment for him. 67. On December 7, 2012, Ms. Mayerich met with Plaintiff and Defendant Chief Dickerson. Defendant Chief Dickerson told Ms. Mayerich that he was leery of Plaintiff remaining in the Detective Bureau and the property room because of trust issues, presumably referring to Plaintiff s refusal to destroy evidence as ordered by Defendant Chief Dickerson. 68. At this meeting, Defendant Chief Dickerson also lauded Plaintiff s work in the Detective Bureau, how Plaintiff had been a great employee, that he could count on Plaintiff always getting the job done but that that had changed since the time period when the City of Romulus Police Department had received the FOIA request concerning the video tape of the assault by a police officer on a

12 2:13-cv JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 12 of 18 Pg ID 12 handcuffed prisoner and when Defendants learned of Plaintiff s complaints to the Attorney General s Office. 69. At the conclusion of the meeting, Ms. Mayerich asked Plaintiff if he wanted to be transferred to road patrol. 70. In response, Plaintiff stated that he did not want to be transferred to road patrol and that he only wanted to be able to do his job without being picked on or lied to. 71. On January 9, 2013, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant Shelby had been paid for days which Plaintiff suspected that Defendant Captain Shelby had not worked. 72. Specifically, Plaintiff noted that the payroll records indicated that Defendant Shelby was paid D-8 for December 27, 2012 and December 28, Plaintiff had worked those exact shifts and had not seen Defendant Shelby at work. 74. On January 9, 2013, Plaintiff reported his suspicions that Defendant Captain Shelby was being paid for work not performed directly to Defendant Chief Dickerson. 75. On January 9, 2013, Lt. Czernik came to Plaintiff at approximately 4:00 pm and told him that he was to meet with Defendant Chief Dickerson at 4:30 pm. Plaintiff expected the meeting to be about the payroll discrepancy concerning Defendant Captain Shelby. 76. Defendant Chief Dickerson, Captain John Leacher and Lt. Czernik (Plaintiff s Union representative) attended a meeting in Captain Leacher s office. 77. At the time, Defendant Dickerson passed out a memo and stated This is not discipline.

13 2:13-cv JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 13 of 18 Pg ID At the meeting, Plaintiff was presented with a memo directed to Human Resources Director Carol Mayerich concerning Plaintiff s report of payroll discrepancies related to Defendant Captain Shelby. 79. The memo further stated: Also, as discussed with you and my Executive Command Staff over the past few weeks of my intention of eliminating the Detective Sergeants position from the Investigative Services Bureau and transferring the position back to the Afternoon Shift-Uniformed Patrol Operations Division effective February 1, 2013, is going to be effective immediately. By delaying the transfer any further, will only worsen the already poor communication and working relationship of the Captain and the Sergeant. 80. Consequently, Plaintiff was relieved of his duties in the Detective Bureau and was transferred to being a road patrol supervisor, a position far different from that of the Detective Bureau. 81. Removal from the Detective Sergeant position to Sergeant for road patrol meant that Plaintiff would lose his 5% pay raise over patrol Sergeants, lose the title Detective and the benefits and privileges commensurate therewith, no longer have an assigned city vehicle which he could take home, would no longer have use of the city issued cell phone, would no longer be able to work the day shift, would no longer have weekends and holidays off with pay and lost the privilege of scheduling his own overtime to keep up with his assigned duties and lost access to many parts of the building in which Plaintiff worked. 82. The past practice of the City of Romulus Police Department is to provide employees two week notice of any schedule change and to also allow officers to keep their department issued cell phones for a period of time. Plaintiff did not receive this notice.

14 2:13-cv JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 14 of 18 Pg ID On January 9, 2013, at approximately 1630 hours, Plaintiff was transferred from the day shift and ordered to work the January 10, 2013 afternoon road patrol shift starting at 1430 hours. Plaintiff s department issued cell phone was also immediately confiscated. The immediate confiscation of his cell phone also deviated from the Department s past practice. 84. Plaintiff was also excluded from meetings with Defendants Chief Dickerson and Shelby and had his authority undermined by them. 85. Since Plaintiff s refusal to destroy evidence of suspected criminal activity, his reports of suspected illegal activity to the City of Romulus Police Department and the Attorney General s Office and the exercise of his free speech rights Plaintiff has suffered the adverse employment actions set forth in paragraphs above. COUNT I: VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF S FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 42 USC Plaintiff re-alleges word for word the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 85 above. 87. Plaintiff spoke out as a citizen on matters of substantial public concern when he contacted the Attorney General s Office to report his suspicion that Defendants were engaged in a cover-up of an assault by a police officer of a handcuffed, defenseless prisoner and his concern that Defendants intended to destroy material evidence of such assault. 88. Plaintiff also spoke out as a citizen on matters of substantial concern when he reported to the City of Romulus Human Resources Department that he believed that Defendant Captain Shelby had received pay for time he did not work.

15 2:13-cv JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 15 of 18 Pg ID Defendants knew of Plaintiff s protected speech because he told them of it. 90. Upon learning of Plaintiff s protected speech, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff when they eliminated his position in the Detective Bureau and deprived him of the benefits commensurate with such position, wrongly disciplined him and created a hostile work environment for him because he exercised his First Amendment free speech rights on matters of public concern. 91. Defendants retaliatory actions were intentional and malicious. 92. Defendants retaliatory actions were of the kind that would likely chill a person from exercising their free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. 93. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants violation of Plaintiff s First Amendment free speech rights, Plaintiff suffered economic damages as set forth above and non-economic injuries including, but not limited to, lost wages, loss of professional opportunities, emotional distress, anxiety, depression, fear and other compensable injuries. ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiff asks this Court to enter a judgment in his favor and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limit of this Court, as well as compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages, attorney fees, costs and interest and all other legal and equitable relief, including injunctive relief to prohibit any further acts of retaliations and reinstatement to his former position as well as all other relief as provided under 42 USC 1983, 1985 and COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT 94. Plaintiff re-alleges word for word paragraphs 1 through 93.

16 2:13-cv JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 16 of 18 Pg ID Defendants are Plaintiff s employer for purposes of Michigan s Whistleblower Protection Act, being MCL , et seq. 96. Plaintiff is an employee covered by the Michigan Whistleblower Protect Act. 97. When Plaintiff reported his suspicions of illegal activity to the local law enforcement and the Michigan Attorney General s Office as described above, he was engaged in protected activity under the Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act. 98. Defendants had actual knowledge of Plaintiff s protected activity. 99. After Defendants knew that Plaintiff had reported, or was about to report, his suspicions of illegal activity to various public bodies, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by eliminating his position in the Detective Bureau, transferring him to another shift and taking other adverse employment actions against Plaintiff A causal connection exists between Plaintiff protected activity and Defendants adverse employment actions taken against him. (See ) 101. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, Plaintiff suffered economic and non-economic injuries including, but not limited to, lost wages, loss of professional opportunities, emotional distress, anxiety, depression, fear and other compensable injuries. ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiff asks this Court to enter a judgment in his favor and against Defendants in excess of the jurisdictional limit of this Court, including costs, attorney fees and interest and all other legal and equitable relief including injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from further retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff and reinstatement as provided under the Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act.

17 2:13-cv JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 17 of 18 Pg ID 17 COUNT III: VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN PUBLIC POLICY 102. Plaintiff re-alleges word for word paragraphs 1 through Plaintiff refused to commit a crime in the course of his employment, to wit: to destroy material evidence of an officer assaulting a handcuffed prisoner as instructed by Defendant Chief Dickerson Michigan public policy provides that an employer may not retaliate or take any adverse employment action against an employee who refuses to commit a crime in the course of his employment Defendant City of Romulus d/b/a City of Romulus Police Department eliminated Plaintiff s position in the Detective Bureau and took other adverse employment action against him because he refused to commit a crime in the course of his employment, to wit: he refused to conspire in a cover-up and destroy evidence of criminal conduct by a co-employee as instructed by Defendant Chief Dickerson. (See, ) 106. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants violation of Michigan public policy, Plaintiff suffered economic and non-economic injuries including, but not limited to, lost wages, loss of professional opportunities, emotional distress, anxiety, depression, fear and other compensable injuries. ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiff asks this Court to enter judgment in Plaintiff s favor in excess of the jurisdictional limit of the Court, including attorney s fees, costs and interest, and provide Plaintiff with all legal and equitable relief to which he may be entitled, including injunctive relief against any further acts of retaliation by Defendants and reinstatement.

18 2:13-cv JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 18 of 18 Pg ID 18 Dated: February 25, 2013 /s/ Joel B. Sklar JOEL B. SKLAR P38338 Attorney for Plaintiff 615 Griswold, Suite 1116 Detroit, MI Joelb79@hotmail.com JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a jury trial of this cause. /s/ Joel B. Sklar JOEL B. SKLAR P38338 Attorney for Plaintiff 615 Griswold, Suite 1116 Detroit, MI Joelb79@hotmail.com Dated: February 25, 2013