Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LORETTA MURPHY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 12-4082 ) CITY OF CHICAGO, a ) municipal corporation, ) CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS ) A. HLADCZUK (Star # 4917), R. ) TORRES (Star # 14607), P. MACK ) (Star # 600), and other unknown and ) unidentified City of Chicago police ) officers, individually and ) in their official capacity, and ) MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, ) INC., d/b/a Chicago Marriott ) Downtown Hotel, and Marriott ) Hotel Services, Inc.'s security guard ) MICHAEL MADER, ) ) Jury Trial Demanded Defendants. ) COMPLAINT Plaintiff Loretta Murphy, by and through her undersigned attorneys, for her Complaint against Defendants City of Chicago, Chicago Police Officers A. Hladczuk (star # 4917), R. Torres (star # 14607), P. Mack (star # 600), other unknown and unidentified City of Chicago police officers, Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. d/b/a Chicago Marriott Downtown Hotel, and Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.'s security guard Michael Mader, states and alleges as follows:
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 2 of 24 PageID #:2 Jurisdiction and Venue 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 28 U.S.C. 1343, 28 U.S.C. 1331, and 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). 2. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) and (3), in that all defendants reside in this District and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. The Parties 3. Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation, and is incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois and was, at all times material to this Complaint, the employer of Defendant Chicago Police Officers A. Hladczuk, R. Torres and P. Mack. 4. Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres P. Mack and other unknown officers were, at all times material to this Complaint, duly appointed Chicago Police Officers and citizens of the State of Illinois. On information and belief, all the Defendant police officers reside in the City of Chicago. Plaintiff is suing all the Defendant police officers in their individual and official capacities. 5. Defendant Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., d/b/a Chicago Marriott Downtown Hotel, (hereinafter, "Marriott Downtown Hotel") is a Delaware corporation registered to do business in State of Illinois. Marriott Downtown Hotel is a hotel located at 540 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611. 6. Defendant Michael Mader was, at all times, a security officer employed by Marriott Downtown Hotel. 7. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy is a citizen of Illinois and resides in this District. 2
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 3 of 24 PageID #:3 Background 8. This is an action seeking damages against Defendants for committing acts, under color of law, which deprived Plaintiff Loretta Murphy of rights secured by the United States Constitution, the laws of the United States and the laws of the State of Illinois. 9. This action arises from the unlawful and malicious detention and arrest of Loretta in the early morning hours of May 29, 2011. 10. On May 28, 2011, Loretta attended her daughter's wedding. 11. Loretta's daughter had contracted with Marriott Downtown Hotel for rental of a honeymoon suite and a hospitality suite. 12. Loretta's daughter informed Marriott Downtown Hotel that the wedding guests would be arriving at Marriott Downtown Hotel at or around midnight, following the daughter's wedding reception. 13. Loretta's daughter also informed Marriott Downtown Hotel that the wedding guests would be bringing alcohol into the hospitality suite and that they would require additional seating in the hospitality suite. 14. Loretta, her daughter and other guests arrived at Marriott Downtown Hotel by shuttle at approximately 12:30 am on May 29, 2011. 15. Loretta and other guests proceeded from the shuttle to the hospitality suite. 16. Staff employed by Marriott Downtown Hotel brought several cases of beer and additional seating to the hospitality suite. 17. At approximately 2:00 am, Loretta's daughter left the hospitality suite with her new husband. Upon leaving the hospitality suite, Loretta's daughter encountered 3
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 4 of 24 PageID #:4 several security guards who were employed by Marriott Downtown Hotel approaching the hospitality suite. 18. Loretta's daughter informed these security guards that she had just been married and that she had contracted with Marriott Downtown Hotel for use of the hospitality suite. Loretta's daughter also informed the security guards that Marriott Downtown Hotel agreed in advance of the wedding date that the wedding guests would be allowed to use the hospitality suite for a party following the wedding reception. 19. The security guards apologized to Loretta's daughter, the security guards said that they would not return, and the security guards left the area. 20. At approximately 2:30 am, Loretta went to sleep in a closed bedroom that was a part of the hospitality suite. 21. Other invited wedding guests remained in the hospitality suite. 22. Loretta was subsequently awoken by one of the wedding guests telling her that security officers were at the door of the hospitality suite. 23. Loretta came into the main part of the hospitality suite and observed several security officers employed by Marriott Downtown Hotel. 24. On information and belief, the Marriott Downtown Hotel security officers included, among others, Defendant Michael Mader. 25. The Defendant Chicago police officers subsequently came to the hospitality suite. 26. On information and belief, the Chicago police officers at the hospitality suite included, among others, Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres and P. Mack. 4
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 5 of 24 PageID #:5 27. Loretta informed the Marriott Downtown Hotel security officers and the Chicago police officers that it was her daughter's wedding night and that herself and the other guests in the room were permitted to be in the room. 28. One of the wedding guests continued to drink from a champagne bottle while the Chicago police officers and the Marriott Downtown Hotel security officers were in the hospitality suite. 29. The Chicago police officers became upset and demanded that the guest put the champagne bottle down. 30. Loretta explained to the officers that they were guests in the hospitality suite and that the officers should be respectful of the right to be in the suite. 31. The officers became upset with Loretta's statement of the guests' rights to be in the suite celebrating Loretta's daughter's wedding. 32. At that time, the Chicago police officers arrested Loretta, restrained her, and Defendant Michael Mader signed a criminal complaint against Loretta on behalf of Marriott Downtown Hotel for disorderly conduct. 33. At the time of her arrest, Loretta was on private property owned by Marriott Downtown Hotel. 34. At the time of her arrest, the Marriott Downtown Hotel security officers were acting under color of law wherein they directed the Chicago police officers to the hospitality suite, wherein they allowed the Chicago police officers into the hospitality suite, and wherein they directed and/or conspired with the Chicago police officers to arrest and to prosecute Loretta where there was no probable cause to do so. Without the assistance, compliance and conduct of the Marriott Downtown Hotel security officers, the 5
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 6 of 24 PageID #:6 Chicago police officers would not have been in a position to arrest Loretta, and they would not have arrested Loretta. The Marriott Downtown Hotel security officers and the Defendant Chicago police officers all knew that without their conspiracy to fabricate charges against Loretta, they would not be able to proceed with the arrest of Loretta. 35. In the criminal complaint against Loretta, Defendant Michael Mader supplied the necessary information for the Chicago Police Department to proceed with formal arrest charges against Loretta. The information in the criminal complaint was the sole basis of the criminal charges against Loretta. All the while, both Michael Mader and the Defendant Chicago police officers knew that the allegations in the criminal complaint were false. 36. Loretta was taken to the first district Chicago police station where she was processed. Loretta was not released until 6:30 am on May 29, 2011. While at the police station, Loretta was kept handcuffed in a cell. 37. The arrest of Loretta was unlawful and in violation of the United States Constitution, the laws of the United States and the laws of the State of Illinois. 38. Prior to trial, the chief security officer for Marriott Downtown Hotel came to court and asked the Cook County State's Attorney's Office to drop the charge against Loretta. 39. The Cook County State's Attorney's Office dismissed the charge against Loretta in its entirety. The dismissal was the final determination of said charge. 40. At all times material to this Complaint, all the Defendant police officers acted in their capacity as duly appointed Chicago Police Officers under color of the 6
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 7 of 24 PageID #:7 statutes, customs, ordinances, and usage of the State of Illinois, the City of Chicago and the Chicago Police Department. 41. At all times material to this Complaint, all the Defendant police officers acted within the scope of their employment as Chicago Police Officers. 42. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant Michael Mader acted within the scope of his employment as a security guard for Marriott Downtown Hotel. 43. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant Michael Mader and Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel acted in concert with the City of Chicago Police Department and acted pursuant to the policy, practice or custom of the City of Chicago. 44. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant Michael Mader and Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel acted under color of law. COUNT I Section 1983 Action For False Arrest Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack And Unknown Chicago Police Officers 45. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 46. There was no warrant for the arrest of Loretta on May 29, 2011. 47. The arrest of Loretta on May 29, 2011 was without probable cause for Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers to believe that Loretta had committed the charged offense, and Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers knew that they were without probable cause to arrest Loretta. 7
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 8 of 24 PageID #:8 48. Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers intentionally, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Loretta's rights, deprived Loretta of her liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983. 49. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken pursuant to the policy and practice of the Chicago Police Department, in that: a. As a matter of both policy and practice, the Chicago Police Department directly encourages, and is thereby the moving force behind the type of misconduct at issue here by failing to adequately train, supervise, and control its officers, such that its failure to do so manifests deliberate indifference. b. As a matter of policy and practice, the Chicago Police Department facilitates the type of misconduct at issue here by failing to adequately investigate, punish and discipline prior instances of similar misconduct, thereby leading Chicago police officers to believe their actions will never be scrutinized and, in that way, directly encouraging future abuses such as those affecting the Plaintiff in this case. c. Generally, as a matter of widespread practice so prevalent as to comprise municipal policy, officers of the Chicago Police Department abuse citizens in a manner similar to that alleged by the Plaintiff in this count on a frequent basis, yet the City of Chicago, and the Chicago Police Department's Internal Affairs Division, make findings of wrongdoing in a disproportionately small number of cases. 8
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 9 of 24 PageID #:9 d. City policy makers are aware of, condone and facilitate by their inaction, a "code of silence" in the Chicago Police Department. Police officers routinely fail to report instances of police misconduct and lie to protect each other from punishment, and go undisciplined for doing so. e. The City of Chicago has failed to act to remedy the patterns of abuse, despite actual knowledge of the same, thereby causing the types of injuries alleged here. f. The City of Chicago, acting by and through its agents, has knowledge of, and the relevant policy makers have failed to act to remedy, the patterns of abuse described in the preceding sub-paragraphs, despite actual knowledge of the same, thereby tacitly approving and ratifying the type of misconduct alleged here. 50. The Defendant Officers' misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the Defendant City of Chicago's policy, practice and custom, in the manner described above. 51. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' unlawful and malicious deprivation of Loretta's rights, namely her arrest and confinement, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. COUNT II Section 1983 Action For Excessive Force Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack And Unknown Chicago Police Officers 52. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 53. The conduct of the Defendant Chicago police officers toward Loretta constituted excessive force in violation of the United States Constitution. 9
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 10 of 24 PageID #:10 54. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally and with willful indifference to Loretta's constitutional rights. 55. The Defendant Officers' misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the Defendant City of Chicago's policy, practice and custom, in the manner described above. 56. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendant Officers within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that their employer, City of Chicago, is liable for their actions. 57. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' unjustified and excessive use of force, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. COUNT III State Claim Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres P. Mack And Unknown Chicago Police Officers For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 58. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 59. Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' conduct in arresting Loretta, as detailed above, was extreme and outrageous. 60. Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' conduct was willful and wanton. 61. Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers intended to cause severe emotional distress to Loretta or knew that their conduct would result in a high probability of severe emotional distress to Loretta. 10
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 11 of 24 PageID #:11 62. Loretta suffered severe emotional distress as a result of Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' extreme and outrageous conduct, as detailed above. 63. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendant Officers within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that their employer, City of Chicago, is liable for their actions. COUNT IV Section 1983 Action For Unreasonable Seizure Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack And Unknown Chicago Police Officers 64. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 65. One or more of the Defendant Chicago police officers unlawfully seized Loretta, and in the course of that seizure, engaged in harassing and abusive behavior toward Loretta, all in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 66. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others. 67. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendant Officers within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that their employer, City of Chicago, is liable for their actions. 68. The Defendant Officers' misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the Defendant City of Chicago's policy, practice and custom, in the manner described above. 11
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 12 of 24 PageID #:12 69. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' unreasonable seizure, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. COUNT V State Claim Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack And Unknown Chicago Police Officers For Malicious Prosecution 70. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 71. By conspiring with Defendant Michael Mader to sign a criminal complaint against Loretta, Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers actively participated in the commencement of a criminal proceeding against her. 72. The criminal proceeding was dismissed by the Cook County State's Attorney's Office in favor of Loretta. 73. There was no probable cause for the criminal complaint against Loretta. 74. In conspiring to bring a criminal complaint against Loretta, Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers acted intentionally and with malice. 75. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendant Officers within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that their employer, City of Chicago, is liable for their actions. 76. The Defendant Officers' misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the Defendant City of Chicago's policy, practice and custom, in the manner described above. 12
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 13 of 24 PageID #:13 77. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' conduct, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. COUNT VI Section 1983 Action For Conspiracy To Deprive Constitutional Rights Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack And Unknown Chicago Police Officers 78. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 79. As described more full above and throughout this Complaint, there was an agreement between the individual defendants and other known and unknown coconspirators, including but not limited to Marriott Downtown Hotel security officers, to deprive Loretta of her constitutional rights. 80. Specifically, the Defendants conspired by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose by an unlawful means. In furtherance of their conspiracy, each of the co-conspirators committed overt acts and was an otherwise willful participant in joint activity. 81. The conspiring Defendants' actions were undertaken intentionally, with malice and reckless indifference to Loretta's rights. 82. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendant Officers within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that their employer, City of Chicago, is liable for their actions. 83. The Defendant Officers' misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the Defendant City of Chicago's policy, practice and custom, in the manner described above. 13
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 14 of 24 PageID #:14 84. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' conspiracy, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. COUNT VII State Claim Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack And Unknown Chicago Police Officers For Assault And Battery 85. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 86. The conduct of one or more of the individual Defendants, acting under color of law and within the scope of his employment, constituted unjustified and offensive physical contact and/or created in Loretta the reasonable apprehension of imminent harm, undertaken willfully and wantonly, and proximately causing Loretta's injuries. 87. The actions of the individual Defendants were undertaken intentionally, with malice and reckless indifference to Loretta's rights and to the rights of others. 88. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendant Officers within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that their employer, City of Chicago, is liable for their actions. 89. The Defendant Officers' misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the Defendant City of Chicago's policy, practice and custom, in the manner described above. 90. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' conduct, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. 14
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 15 of 24 PageID #:15 COUNT VIII State Claim Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack And Unknown Chicago Police Officers For False Imprisonment 91. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 92. Loretta was handcuffed and taken into police custody, and thereby had her liberty to move about unlawfully restrained, despite individual Defendants' knowledge that there was no probable cause for doing so. 93. The actions of the individual Defendants were undertaken intentionally, with malice and reckless indifference to Loretta's rights and to the rights of others. 94. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendant Officers within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that their employer, City of Chicago, is liable for their actions. 95. The Defendant Officers' misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the Defendant City of Chicago's policy, practice and custom, in the manner described above. 96. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' conduct, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. COUNT IX State Claim Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack And Unknown Chicago Police Officers For Conspiracy 97. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 15
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 16 of 24 PageID #:16 98. As described more full above and throughout this Complaint, there was an agreement between the individual Defendants and other known and unknown coconspirators, including but not limited to Marriott Downtown Hotel security officers, to participate in an unlawful act, or to act in an unlawful manner toward Loretta, including by conspiring to falsely detain and assault Loretta, falsely arrest her, and intentionally inflict emotional distress upon her. 99. The Defendant Chicago police officers committed one or more overt acts to further their common scheme of participating in an unlawful manner toward Loretta. 100. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendant Officers within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that their employer, City of Chicago, is liable for their actions. 101. The Defendant Officers' misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the Defendant City of Chicago's policy, practice and custom, in the manner described above. 102. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack and unknown Chicago police officers' conspiracy, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. COUNT X Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant City Of Chicago For Failure To Properly Train, Supervise and Discipline 103. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 104. As described more fully above, Defendant City of Chicago has a policy or custom of not properly training its police officers to report constitutional violations committed by other police officers. 16
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 17 of 24 PageID #:17 105. As described more fully above, Defendant City of Chicago has a policy or custom of not appropriately disciplining its police officers when they have committed constitutional violations. 106. As described more fully above, Defendant City of Chicago has a policy or custom of not properly supervising police officers who have committed prior constitutional violations, and/or who are likely to commit future constitutional violations. 107. The damages suffered by Loretta, as detailed above, are a direct and proximate result of Defendant City of Chicago's deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its residents, including Loretta. 108. Defendant City of Chicago's failure to properly train, discipline and supervise its police officers caused a deprivation of Loretta's rights under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C 1983. 109. Defendant City of Chicago is fully knowledgeable of its shortcomings in training, discipline and supervision, as described in the preceding paragraphs. 110. On information and belief, the damage caused to Loretta as a direct and proximate result of Defendant City of Chicago's polices and customs, as described in the preceding paragraphs, has resulted in many instances of constitutional violations of City of Chicago residents. 111. Defendant City of Chicago allowed Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres and P. Mack and other unknown police officers, through deliberate indifference or callous disregard of Loretta's rights under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983, to remain unsupervised and undisciplined. 17
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 18 of 24 PageID #:18 112. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant City of Chicago's policy or custom of not properly training its police officers, Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres P. Mack and other unknown police officers were able to violate Loretta's rights. 113. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant City of Chicago's policy or custom of not properly training, supervising and disciplining its police officers, Loretta was damaged, as described above. COUNT XI State Law Claim For Respondeat Superior Against City of Chicago 114. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 115. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, the individual Defendants were members and agents of the Chicago Police Department acting at all relevant times within the scope of their employment. its agents. 116. Defendant City of Chicago is liable as principal for all torts committed by COUNT XII State Law Claim For Indemnification Against City of Chicago 117. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 118. Illinois law provides that public entities are directed to pay any tort judgment for compensatory damages for which employees are liable within the scope of their employment activities. 18
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 19 of 24 PageID #:19 119. The individual Defendant Chicago police officers are or were employees of the Chicago Police Department who acted within the scope of their employment in committing the misconduct described herein. Count XIII Section 1983 Claim For False Arrest Against Defendant Michael Mader 120. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 121. Defendant Michael Mader acted in concert with the Chicago Police Department to deprive Loretta of her civil rights. 122. Defendant Michael Mader directed and/or conspired with the Chicago Police Department to arrest Loretta. 123. There was no warrant for the arrest of Loretta on May 29, 2011. 124. The arrest of Loretta on May 29, 2011 was without probable cause for Defendant Michael Mader to believe that Loretta had committed the charged offense, and Defendant Michael Mader knew that there was no probable cause to arrest Loretta. 125. Defendant Michael Mader acted intentionally, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Loretta 's rights, deprived Loretta of her liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983. 126. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Michael Mader's unlawful and malicious deprivation of Loretta's rights, namely her arrest and confinement, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. 19
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 20 of 24 PageID #:20 COUNT XIV State Claim Against Defendant Michael Mader For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 127. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 128. Defendant Mader's conduct in causing the arrest of Loretta, as detailed above, was extreme and outrageous. 129. Defendant Mader's conduct was willful and wanton. 130. Defendant Mader intended to cause severe emotional distress to Loretta or knew that his conduct would result in a high probability of severe emotional distress to Loretta. 131. Loretta suffered severe emotional distress as a result of Defendant Mader's extreme and outrageous conduct, as detailed above. COUNT XV State Claim Against Michael Mader For Malicious Prosecution 132. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 133. By signing a criminal complaint against Loretta, Defendant Michael Mader commenced a criminal proceeding against her. 134. The criminal proceeding was dismissed by the Cook County State's Attorney's Office in favor of Loretta. 135. There was no probable cause for the criminal complaint against Loretta. 136. In signing a criminal complaint against Loretta, Defendant Michael Mader acted intentionally and with malice. 20
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 21 of 24 PageID #:21 137. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Michael Mader's conduct, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. COUNT XVI State Law Claim Against Michael Mader For Conspiracy 138. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 139. As described more full above and throughout this Complaint, there was an agreement between the individual Chicago police officers, other known and unknown coconspirators, and Defendant Michael Mader, to participate in an unlawful act, or to act in an unlawful manner toward Loretta, including by conspiring to falsely detain and assault Loretta, falsely arrest her, and intentionally inflict emotional distress upon her. 140. The Defendants committed one or more overt acts to further their common scheme of participating in an unlawful manner toward Loretta. 141. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendants within the scope of their employment and under color of law such that the Defendant's employer is liable for his actions. 142. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conspiracy, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. Count XVII Claim Against Marriott Downtown Hotel For Respondeat Superior 143. Plaintiff Loretta Murphy restates and incorporates all of the above 21
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 22 of 24 PageID #:22 144. Defendant Michael Mader was, at all times, a security officer employed by Marriott Downtown Hotel. 145. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel exerted control over the actions of Defendant Michael Mader. 146. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant Michael Mader was acting within the scope of his employment as an employee of Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel. 147. Defendant Michael Mader's act of going to the hospitality suite on the night in question, of letting the Chicago Police Department officers into the hospitality suite and of signing a criminal complaint against a guest was the kind of conduct authorized by Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel of its security officers. 148. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Michael Mader's conduct and Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel's conduct, Loretta was damaged, including public humiliation, mental, emotional and physical suffering and anguish. Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Loretta Murphy respectfully requests that the Court grant her the following: 1. Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack, and other unknown Chicago police officers individually and in their official capacity, and Defendant City of Chicago, jointly and severally, an award of compensatory damages; 2. Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack, and other unknown Chicago police officers individually for punitive damages; 22
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 23 of 24 PageID #:23 3. Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack, and other unknown Chicago police officers, individually and in their official capacity, and Defendant City of Chicago, jointly and severally, an award of the costs that Plaintiff Loretta Murphy has incurred in bringing this action; 4. Against Defendants A. Hladczuk, R. Torres, P. Mack, and other unknown Chicago police officers, individually and in their official capacity, and Defendant City of Chicago, jointly and severally, an award of reasonable attorney's fees in connection with bringing this action; 5. Against Defendant Michael Mader, individually and in his official capacity, and Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel, jointly and severally, an award of compensatory damages; 6. Against Defendant Michael Mader, individually and in his official capacity, and Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel, jointly and severally, an award of punitive damages; 7. Against Defendant Michael Mader, individually and in his official capacity, and Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel, jointly and severally, an award of the costs that Plaintiff Loretta Murphy has incurred in bringing this action; 8. Against Defendant Michael Mader, individually and in his official capacity, and Defendant Marriott Downtown Hotel, jointly and severally, an award of reasonable attorney's fees in connection with bringing this action; and 9. Any such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. 23
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 24 of 24 PageID #:24 Jury Demand Plaintiff Loretta Murphy demands a trial by jury on all issues triable to a jury. PLAINTIFF LORETTA MURPHY By: /s/ Richard A. Duffin One of Her Attorneys Richard A. Duffin Duffin & Dore, LLC 206 S. Jefferson Suite 100 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 566-0911 May 25, 2012 24
Case: 1:12-cv-04082 Document #: 2 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:25